Alexandra Sandel Clark

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action and striking his amended statement of claim.

The motion judge had concluded that the action was outside the Superior Court's jurisdiction and that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the Divisional Court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the issues raised, as the action fundamentally concerned the enforcement of statutory powers subject to judicial review, not a matter for the Superior Court.

This decision addresses two class actions, Francis v. Ontario and Chandra v. Ontario, concerning administrative segregation of inmates in Ontario correctional facilities.

The court heard motions for approval of a settlement in Chandra and a comprehensive claims protocol (Francis/Chandra Protocol) for both actions.

The Protocol establishes a three-track claims program for distributing aggregate damages and assessing individual claims.

The court granted both motions, finding the settlement and protocol fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, commending counsel for their diligent and exemplary work in pursuing access to justice.

This endorsement concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees in two consolidated proceedings (Johnson et al. v. Ontario and Sabourin v. Ontario) alleging deplorable conditions at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The court approved a settlement of $32,795,400 and class counsel fees of $9,388,207.92, finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the significant litigation risks, the protracted nature of the actions, and the desire for a certain outcome for the thousands of affected class members.

The contingency fee agreements and the requested fees were also deemed fair and reasonable.

The applicant, a French-language health planning entity, sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's refusal to recommend it for designation as a 'public service agency' under the French Language Services Act.

The Divisional Court held that while the Minister's refusal to recommend was subject to judicial review, the applicable standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Minister's decision reasonable, as the applicant's mandate involved providing advice and planning services to government agencies rather than direct services to the public.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, an orthopedic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of certain billing claims.

The applicant argued the Board erred by admitting opinion evidence from an OHIP medical advisor who was not an independent expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably exercised its broad statutory discretion to admit the evidence.

The court noted the witness, while not a traditional independent expert or a 'participant expert' under the civil rules, possessed relevant expertise as an employee of a party and her evidence was largely factual and explanatory.

The applicant, a forensic pathologist, sought judicial review of a reporting letter issued by the Death Investigation Oversight Council regarding her complaint against the Chief Forensic Pathologist.

The applicant alleged that the Chief Forensic Pathologist abused his authority by interfering with her conclusion that a child's death was due to natural causes rather than abuse.

The Council investigated and issued recommendations to improve the death investigation system but did not recommend the Chief Forensic Pathologist's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council is an advisory body, not a disciplinary tribunal, and its decision not to make findings of fact or recommend dismissal was reasonable.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled hearing because she was working as a medic in Ukraine, citing unstable internet access and security concerns that would make it difficult to instruct counsel.

The respondent opposed the motion, noting the late request and scarce court resources.

Despite concerns about the late request and missed deadlines, the court granted the adjournment in the interests of justice to allow the applicant sufficient time to instruct counsel, making the new date peremptory on the applicant.

This was a consent motion for certification for settlement purposes in a class action.

The plaintiff, Adrian Chandra, sued the Ontario provincial government for negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter regarding the operation and management of provincial correctional institutions from September 18, 2018, to August 18, 2021, specifically concerning administrative segregation (solitary confinement).

This action effectively continued the class period from a previous case, Francis v. Ontario.

A settlement agreement was reached, adding an additional $13 million in aggregate damages for class members and establishing a protocol for distribution and individual issue resolution.

The court found that all criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were satisfied and granted the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination complaint due to delay and denying reconsideration.

The applicant, who was on sick leave for breast cancer, received a notice in 2014 that her position was eliminated and she would be laid off upon her return to work.

She filed her HRTO application in 2018.

The HRTO found the triggering event for the one-year limitation period was the 2014 notice, not her future return to work.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Death Investigation Oversight Council (DIOC) brought a motion for a sealing order over autopsy files and a redaction order for witness identities in its record of proceedings, which was filed in response to an application for judicial review by Dr. Jane Turner.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the Divisional Court held that while identifying information in the autopsy files must be redacted to protect the dignity of the deceased infants and their families, sealing the entire files was unnecessary.

The court also refused to redact the identities of witnesses interviewed during the DIOC's investigation, finding that the open court principle did not pose a serious risk to the public interest in witness candour.

The oversight council brought a motion to seal and redact the record of proceedings in an application for judicial review brought by the applicant.

The proposed redactions aimed to protect the identities of witnesses and deceased individuals.

The Divisional Court adjourned the motion, finding it would be contrary to the due administration of justice to proceed without giving notice to the potentially affected non-parties whose privacy interests were at stake.

The respondent, representing a class of seriously mentally ill inmates and inmates held in prolonged administrative segregation, brought a class action against Ontario for Charter breaches and systemic negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that Ontario's use of administrative segregation violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter, and awarded $30 million in aggregate Charter damages.

Ontario appealed, arguing that the Charter breaches were not established for all seriously mentally ill inmates, that Charter damages were inappropriate due to good governance concerns, and that the negligence claim was barred by statute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings that administrative segregation of seriously mentally ill inmates constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, that Ontario's clear disregard for inmates' rights justified Charter damages, and that the operational implementation of segregation policies grounded a valid systemic negligence claim.

The plaintiff, Conrey Francis, was successful on a summary judgment motion in a certified class action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

This decision concerns the costs endorsement following that motion.

Francis sought a partial indemnity award of $782,629.10 (inclusive of taxes) for fees and disbursements.

The Crown argued for a reduction, proposing $617,394.92 (exclusive of taxes).

The court agreed to a deduction of $28,493.78 for disbursements and some, but not all, of the Crown's arguments for fee reduction.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded Francis $720,000, all inclusive.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of inmates in Ontario correctional institutions who were placed in administrative segregation.

The plaintiff alleged that Ontario's use of administrative segregation constituted systemic negligence and violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found that administrative segregation as practiced in Ontario was equivalent to solitary confinement and caused severe psychological harm, particularly to inmates with serious mental illness.

The court held that Ontario breached the inmates' Charter rights and was liable for systemic negligence at the operational level.

The court awarded $30 million in aggregate damages for compensation, vindication, and deterrence.

In a certified class action regarding Ontario's use of administrative segregation, the plaintiff sought to summons an independent expert appointed by Ontario to testify on an upcoming summary judgment motion.

Ontario opposed the summons, arguing it violated procedural rules regarding the timing of examinations.

The court declined to order the examination at this juncture, finding that it was more proportionate to simply order that the expert's Final Report be delivered to class counsel for use on the summary judgment motion once it is provided to Ontario.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order denying its request to file an affidavit as part of its record in an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The applicant argued that the affidavit was necessary to show the Board's findings of fact were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law by the motion judge, who was bound by established precedent that restricts the admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicant union brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The affidavit sought to challenge numerous factual findings made by the Board, alleging they were unreasonable or made without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the strict test that affidavit evidence is only admissible on judicial review in rare and exceptional circumstances to demonstrate a complete absence of evidence on an essential jurisdictional point.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this exacting standard, as the Board had received some evidence on the primary functions in dispute, and the affidavit merely reflected the applicant's counsel's differing notes of the proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the bargaining agent for four construction workers.

The applicant challenged the Board's evidentiary ruling that prevented its site superintendent from testifying about his relationship with other on-site workers not subject to the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to exclude the evidence as irrelevant was reasonable, as the applicant had expressly confirmed it was not challenging the size of the bargaining unit.

The plaintiffs brought motions on consent to certify two class actions against Ontario and Canada arising out of staffing-related lockdowns at Ontario correctional institutions.

The plaintiffs alleged systemic negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and there were adequate representative plaintiffs.

The motions for certification were granted.

The appellant, a registered representative, appealed an Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) decision that overturned an IIROC Hearing Panel's penalty decision and imposed a two-year suspension of her registration.

The appellant had recommended and facilitated off-book investments in second mortgages without her employer's knowledge or approval, and without ensuring prospectus requirements were met.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OSC's decision to intervene and impose a suspension was reasonable, justified, and within the range of acceptable outcomes.