Albertos Polizogopoulos

Appeal of a Divisional Court decision upholding College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario policies requiring physicians who object to providing certain medical procedures on religious grounds to provide effective referrals to non-objecting providers.

The appellants, individual physicians and physician organizations, challenged the policies as violating their freedom of conscience and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and their equality rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the policies infringe freedom of religion, the infringement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The court emphasized the importance of equitable patient access to health care services, particularly for vulnerable populations, and the role of family physicians as gatekeepers in the health care system.

A parent sought accommodation from a school board to receive advance notice of classroom instruction on topics he considered "false teachings" based on his sincere Christian and Greek Orthodox beliefs, including matters related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and moral relativism.

The parent requested the ability to withdraw his children from such classes.

The school board refused, citing its statutory mandate to provide an inclusive and non-discriminatory educational environment.

The application judge found that while the board's refusal engaged the parent's freedom of religion, it was reasonable and proportionate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the parent failed to establish any objective interference with his religious freedom, as he provided no evidence of actual harm to his children despite years of attendance at the school.

The applicants challenged s. 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), which excludes all records relating to abortion services, arguing it violated their s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of expression by impeding meaningful public discussion.

The court found that the provision substantially impeded meaningful debate on a matter of public interest, establishing a prima facie breach of s. 2(b).

While the objective of protecting privacy and safety was pressing, the absolute exclusion of all records, including non-identifying statistical information, was not rationally connected, minimally impairing, or proportional to the objective.

The court declared s. 65(5.7) of FIPPA to be of no force or effect, suspending the declaration for 12 months to allow the legislature to enact remedial legislation.

A motion was brought for leave to intervene as an added party in two Requests for Direction concerning the disposition of Independent Assessment Process records created under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The proposed intervenor, the National Research Centre hosted by the University of Manitoba, argued that it had a direct interest because it might be tasked with archiving the records and could assist the court on privacy and archival practices.

Several Catholic organizations opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the applicant should participate only as a friend of the court.

The court held that it retained ongoing supervisory jurisdiction over the implementation of the class action settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the settlement agreement.

The court found the applicant met the criteria for intervention and that its participation would assist the court.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of a Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim arising from a dispute between university students and a university regarding campus activities and disciplinary actions.

The plaintiffs alleged Charter breaches, negligence, and other claims relating to the university’s response to their activities and alleged involvement with police.

The court held that the Charter claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the pleadings failed to establish that the university was implementing a government program or acting as government under s. 32 of the Charter.

Claims against the individual defendants were also struck as the pleadings did not establish personal liability outside the scope of their employment.

However, the negligence claim against the university itself was permitted to proceed as the amended pleadings sufficiently alleged a potential duty of care and resulting harm.