Adam Jordan Mortimer

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against Ontario for the early cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot Program.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the certification judge erred by engaging in a merits-based analysis of the breach of contract claim rather than applying the 'plain and obvious' test under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the negligence, breach of undertaking, and Charter s. 7 claims, finding that the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision immune from negligence liability and that the Charter claim failed to plead the requisite principles of fundamental justice.

The Crown brought a motion to quash a subpoena issued by the accused for the prosecuting Assistant Crown Attorney.

The accused sought to call the Crown attorney as a witness on an abuse of process application, alleging she had made herself a material witness by relying on her own emails and factual assertions in her responding factum.

The court granted the motion and quashed the subpoena, finding that the stringent test for subpoenaing opposing counsel was not met, as the documentary evidence itself was sufficient and the Crown attorney's testimony was neither necessary nor material.

The appellant, Wendy Sin Ming Ho, appealed the dismissal of her action against the Crown and four tribunals.

She alleged psychological harm from harassment and threats at an Ontario hospital (1999-2000) and subsequent failures by various tribunals to provide redress.

The motion judge dismissed her amended pleading, finding no vicarious liability for the Crown regarding hospital employment issues or quasi-judicial decisions, no Charter breaches, and no basis for a civil court to compel a criminal investigation by the RCMP.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error, no viable cause of action against the Crown, and that fresh evidence did not assist her claim.

The appeal and a motion to file fresh evidence were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal heard motions for leave to intervene from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) in a class action appeal concerning the Basic Income Pilot Project.

The CCLA's unopposed motion was granted, allowing it to file a factum and present oral arguments under specific terms.

The ISAC's motion was dismissed without costs because its direct involvement in shaping the factual matrix of the Basic Income Pilot Project, including consultations and advice to participants, made it too closely associated with the potential class members and the underlying factual issues, thus compromising its role as an intervener.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the Crown and various provincial ministries as defendants, and to make related amendments alleging misfeasance, conspiracy, and Charter breaches arising from the mistaken transfer of her vehicle's ownership and detachment of her license plate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amended claim lacked the heightened particularity required for serious allegations like conspiracy and misfeasance, and improperly named individual ministries rather than the Crown.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to deliver a re-drafted Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim within 30 days.

The Crown brought a motion for default judgment seeking a declaration that the Aylmer Church's conveyance of real property to the Lethbridge Church was fraudulent and void.

The Aylmer Church had transferred the property for nominal consideration shortly after being ordered to pay substantial fines and costs for contempt of court related to COVID-19 public health orders.

The court found multiple badges of fraud, including a non-arm's length transfer, suspicious timing, grossly inadequate consideration, and retained beneficial use.

The motion was granted, the conveyance was declared void, and the lands were made subject to execution by the Crown.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The self-represented plaintiff sued the provincial government, alleging it was liable for workplace harassment she suffered at a hospital in 1999, as well as for the subsequent failure of various tribunals to grant her relief.

The government moved to dismiss the action for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, while the plaintiff moved to extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The court dismissed the action, finding that hospitals are not Crown agents and the Crown is statutorily immune from liability for the acts of independent adjudicative tribunals.

The court also declined to extend the time for trial due to the plaintiff's significant delay and the resulting prejudice.

The Crown applied for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from operating their restaurant in defiance of COVID-19 lockdown regulations.

The respondents had openly defied the Stage 1 Regulation by offering indoor and patio dining despite being in a lockdown zone.

The court found a clear breach of the regulation and no exceptional circumstances to refuse the statutory injunction.

The restraining order was granted, and costs were fixed at $15,000.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from operating a restaurant in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.

The respondents requested more time to retain counsel and opposed the urgency.

The court scheduled an ex parte hearing for later in the week, allowing the respondents the option to attend or to challenge any resulting order at a later date.

The plaintiff abattoir sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion arising from the 19-month suspension of its licence and detention of meat products following an investigation into the processing of uninspected and dead animals.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the provincial regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, as its statutory mandate was to protect public health.

Even if a duty existed, the regulator did not breach the standard of care given the extraordinary circumstances of concurrent criminal investigations, nor did its actions cause the plaintiff's business losses.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiff towing company sought to amend its Statement of Claim to add claims for an interim and permanent mandatory order compelling the Ontario Provincial Police to adhere to a 'First On Scene' tow policy.

The Crown opposed the amendments, arguing that statutory provisions prohibit injunctive and mandatory relief against the Crown.

The Master confirmed jurisdiction to assess the legal tenability of proposed pleadings and held that mandatory orders are a form of injunctive relief prohibited against the Crown.

The Master denied the amendments seeking mandatory orders but permitted amendments pleading irreparable harm and intimidation, as they were tenable claims relevant to damages.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The Attorney General of Ontario moved to dismiss 14 proposed class actions against the Crown (specifically, former and current FSCO superintendents Philip Howell and Brian Mills) for non-compliance with the 60-day notice requirement under s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The plaintiffs had filed 15 class actions alleging that auto insurers failed to comply with FSCO guidelines regarding HST calculation in SABS benefits, and that the FSCO superintendents failed to enforce these guidelines.

The Crown argued that a single notice, the 'Ralston Notice,' was insufficient for the 14 subsequent actions as it did not name all representative plaintiffs.

Applying the 'legislative purpose' approach from Mattick Estate, the court found the Ralston Notice sufficient, as it communicated a complaint reasonably anticipated to result in litigation and provided enough particulars for the Crown to investigate.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the 14 actions were permitted to proceed.

The plaintiff's claim, alleging breach of duty by the Crown and seeking damages for "traumatic stress syndrome" related to Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings, was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the claim to be an abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious, as it constituted a collateral attack on Board findings, sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction, and lacked a legally recognizable cause of action against the Crown or its agents.

The Monitor sought court advice and directions regarding a proposed extension of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) closing date and alleged material breaches of confidentiality obligations by the purchaser, Lagasco Inc., in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The court authorized the Monitor to agree to a final three-week extension of the APA, noting the purchaser's good faith in dealing with unexpected financing issues, but expressed serious concerns about the confidentiality breaches.

The court directed the Monitor to ensure the extension was without prejudice to rights arising from these breaches and to prepare for a potential resumption of the sales process if the APA failed to close.