Altaf Khan

The court ruled on the status of Paul Hatzitrifonos, a non-lawyer and non-paralegal practitioner, to argue provincial offences trials and appeals as an agent for counsel Altaf Khan.

The court determined that permitting such representation is contrary to the proper administration of justice and impedes access to justice.

The court found that Hatzitrifonos, lacking formal legal training, licensing, and professional regulation, cannot provide competent legal services or be properly supervised by counsel.

The court emphasized that representatives in provincial offences proceedings must be authorized under the Law Society Act and subject to professional standards and continuing education requirements.

The co-defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by the drivers of two vehicles ahead of him, asserting that their actions in slowing and stopping after police intervention caused the collision.

The court reviewed police reports, discovery transcripts, and documentary evidence and held that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that applies to a driver who rear-ends another vehicle.

The evidence established that the plaintiff was following too closely and failed to maintain proper vigilance and control.

The court concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and cross-claims.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant, a teacher, was removed from the occasional teachers' list after sharing conspiracy theories with students.

The union agreed to investigate a grievance but required a psychiatric assessment, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the governing legislation permits the Board to use a consultation process rather than a formal hearing.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and claimed statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The insurer sought production of the applicant's collateral benefit carrier file and group insurance contract to determine if collateral benefits were available.

The applicant refused, arguing the request was a bad faith delay tactic and not raised during mediation.

The arbitrator ordered production, finding the documents relevant to calculating the medical benefits owed and noting the insurer had previously raised the issue of collateral benefits.