Adam H. Kanji

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to compel the class action administrator (Epiq) to disclose contact information of "Unlawfully at Large" (UAL) claimants to law enforcement.

The class members, through their counsel, opposed this, arguing it was an improper use of class action administration powers and a violation of Charter rights, suggesting that the Criminal Code's production order process was the appropriate mechanism.

The court, in a joint decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec, denied the Attorney General's broad request.

Instead, it granted a modified order, allowing disclosure only if the Attorney General first obtains a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, thereby upholding the proper legal process for obtaining such information while acknowledging the Attorney General's good faith in bringing the motion.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which had rejected a joint submission on penalty for a member who pleaded guilty to professional misconduct involving inappropriate comments.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had substituted its own penalty, finding the proposed three-month suspension unduly harsh.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee erred in law by applying a 'fitness test' rather than the stringent 'public interest test' established in Anthony-Cook.

The Court found that the joint submission did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and ordered that the jointly proposed penalty be imposed.

This is Part 6 of a joint decision concerning the ongoing administration of multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec) against the Attorney General of Canada regarding administrative segregation.

The parties brought a joint, consensual motion to amend sections 10.1 and 11.2 of the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The amendments aim to resolve issues arising from "BRG Crossover" claimants (those with placements in both Ontario and Quebec) and misallocated claimants, by allowing claimants to elect the court (Ontario or Quebec) that will review their claims, provided there is a connection to that jurisdiction.

The court approved the amendments, finding them to be in the best interests of class members and conducive to cost-effective and expeditious claim determination.

This is Part 7 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning multi-jurisdictional class actions (Brazeau, Reddock, Gallone).

The decision addresses a consensual motion by the parties to streamline the payment process for "Track 2, Box 1 only Claims" under the previously approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The courts approved an order confirming that payments to class members, class counsel, and the Class Proceedings Fund will be made periodically (every 75 days after a cut-off date) without requiring further motions for confirmation, thereby enhancing judicial economy and access to justice.

The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) brought a motion for a sealing order concerning an Administrative Fairness Letter (AFL) and its responses, central to its application alleging systemic bias and Islamophobia in a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the sealing order, proposing a more tailored redaction approach.

The court, applying the Sherman Estate test, declined the full sealing order.

While acknowledging a serious risk to the physical safety and dignity of minors and peripherally involved MAC members due to personal information, the court found that a full sealing order was not necessary.

Instead, it ordered specific redactions of names of minors and peripherally involved members, personal contact information, and financial details, emphasizing the paramount importance of open courts for public debate on government conduct, especially concerning allegations of constitutional violations.

The moving party brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from rendering a final audit decision that could recommend the revocation of its charitable status.

The moving party alleged the audit was tainted by Islamophobia and violated its Charter rights.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm because the CRA had not yet made a final decision, making the anticipated harm premature and speculative.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the CRA due to the public interest in its regulatory role, and the moving party failed to meet the high threshold for a quia timet injunction.

The parties in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation sought the courts' approval for consensual amendments to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The amendments aimed to streamline the claims process, implement an estates protocol, adjust damages calculations, and expedite the payment of aggregate damages to eligible class members.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec jointly approved the proposed amendments, finding them to be in the best interests of the class members and the most efficient means of adjudicating individual issues.

The appellants restructured family trusts, incorporating "Child Corporations" and subscribing for shares without actual payment, leading to a significant tax reassessment by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for taxable benefits.

They sought a declaration from the Superior Court that the shares were invalidly issued under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and an order for rectification of share registers, aiming to negate the tax assessment.

The Superior Court declined jurisdiction, deferring to the Tax Court of Canada, and also indicated it would not have granted the requested relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court's discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction, finding no reviewable error.

The Court emphasized that the primary dispute was between the appellants and the CRA, falling within the Tax Court's specialized expertise, and that the corporate parties did not require a binding order from the Superior Court to resolve internal corporate issues.

The defendant doctors brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce settlement documents and a pre-trial conference brief from two prior actions (a tort action and a statutory accident benefits action).

The plaintiff refused on the basis of settlement privilege.

The defendants argued that disclosure was necessary to prevent double recovery regarding a litigation loan that was claimed as damages in all three actions.

The court granted the motion, finding that the public interest in preventing overcompensation and facilitating meaningful settlement discussions in the current action outweighed the public interest in protecting the prior settlements, distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Sable Offshore.

The applicant cattle producer sought judicial review of a decision by Agricorp, which accepted a recommendation from the Business Risk Management Review Committee that weight gain for cattle occurring outside Ontario was ineligible for benefits under the Risk Management Program.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Agricorp's interpretation of the governing Order in Council and Guidelines was reasonable, as the provisions consistently emphasized 'production in Ontario'.

The court also found no procedural unfairness, noting the applicant had a full opportunity to make submissions and the Committee's reliance on the definition of 'Farmer' did not constitute a new issue.

The Court of Appeal considered when the limitation period for a claim against an unidentified motorist insurer (under s. 265 of the Insurance Act) begins to run, specifically under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge and Divisional Court held that the limitation period does not begin until the insured makes an indemnification claim that the insurer fails to satisfy.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this, holding that a claim against the insurer is "discovered" under s. 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Limitations Act only when the insured knows or ought to know that the insurer's act or omission (failure to indemnify) caused their loss.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the plaintiff's claim against TTC Insurance was not statute-barred.

The applicant brought a refusals motion in the context of an application for judicial review of decisions denying it financial support under an agricultural risk management program.

The applicant sought to compel the decision-makers to answer questions about who authored the decisions and who was involved in the deliberative process, arguing this was necessary to advance its claim of a denial of natural justice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions were irrelevant to the pleaded natural justice ground and amounted to an unwarranted fishing expedition into deliberative privilege.

The Toronto Islands Community Trust Corporation sought declaratory relief, an injunction, and fines against Peter McLaughlin and Steven Whitfield regarding the transfer of an Island home.

McLaughlin, aged 90, adopted Whitfield, aged 58, and then purported to transfer a half-interest in his home to Whitfield, relying on an exception in the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993, which permits transfers to a "child" (including adopted child).

The Trust argued this circumvented the Act's purpose of restricting transfers.

The court, applying a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, found that given the genuine, long-standing familial relationship between McLaughlin and Whitfield, the transfer did not violate the spirit or purpose of the Act.

The court dismissed the Trust's application for declaratory relief, injunction, and fines, but awarded costs to the Trust for a previous motion and full indemnity costs to the respondents for the main application.

The applicants sought declarations that shares issued to them in corporations created for their children were never validly issued because the shares were allegedly never paid for, and sought rectification of the share registers after CRA reassessments treated them as controlling shareholders who received taxable benefits.

The court declined jurisdiction, holding that the application was in substance an attempt to influence the outcome of a tax dispute that should be determined in the Tax Court of Canada, which was better placed to interpret and apply the relevant corporate law issues in the tax context.

In any event, declaratory relief was refused because there was conflicting evidence on payment, no internal corporate dispute requiring intervention, and potential retroactive disruption to prior corporate acts.

Rectification was also refused because the records accurately reflected the parties' original intention and the requested relief would amount to impermissible retroactive tax planning.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming the renewal of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and a finding of incapacity to make decisions about his antipsychotic medications.

The court upheld the Board's finding of incapacity and the validity of the CTO, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the appellant's inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of discontinuing medication.

However, the court found an error in the Community Treatment Plan (CTP) by not accounting for COVID-19 public health restrictions.

The CTP was amended to allow for flexible meeting formats (videoconference, teleconference, or in-person) at the discretion of the respondent physician, considering public health and the appellant's needs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondents $3,000 for a defective used truck with a cracked frame.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence, failing to apply caveat emptor, and piercing the corporate veil to hold him personally liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that hearsay is admissible in Small Claims Court, caveat emptor did not apply due to implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act, and the appellant failed to adequately disclose he was acting on behalf of a corporation.

The appellants appealed an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the TTC Insurance Company Limited as a defendant.

The appellants argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the limitation period for an indemnification claim does not begin to run until a demand is made and the insurer fails to satisfy it, following the Markel line of authorities.