Ananthan Sinnadurai

The applicant, Play For Fun Studios Inc., sought a declaration that its game "GotSkill" is a game of skill, not a game of chance or mixed skill and chance, as defined under s. 197(1) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent, the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing, argued that considering multiple plays, the potential next win for subsequent rounds introduced an element of chance, making it a game of mixed skill and chance.

The court found that while the potential next win for subsequent rounds involved an element of chance from the player's perspective, a sufficiently skilled player could consistently "beat" the machine by achieving a 110% score on the skill task, thereby winning more than wagered over time.

This distinguished "GotSkill" from older "gum dispenser" cases where players were entirely at the mercy of the machine.

The application was granted, declaring GotSkill to be a game of skill.

Three Toronto police officers sued the Attorney General of Ontario for negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging that Crown Attorneys failed to properly investigate and defend against allegations of police misconduct made by an accused during a criminal trial, causing reputational harm to the officers.

The Attorney General moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court struck the negligence claim, finding that while a prima facie duty of care might exist, it was negated by policy concerns regarding the diversion of Crown Attorneys from their primary duties and the potential chilling effect on prosecutorial discretion.

However, the court allowed the misfeasance in public office claim to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded the necessary elements of deliberate and unlawful conduct.

The plaintiffs moved for certification of a class action against the Crown for systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the failure to advance compensation claims for former Crown wards who suffered abuse or neglect.

The court granted the motion, certifying common issues related to duty of care, standard of care, breach, fiduciary duty, aggregate damages, and punitive damages.

The court found a class action to be the preferable procedure, promoting access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification, despite the Crown's arguments regarding over-broad class definition and alternative compensation avenues.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the ground that it was barred by a limitation period.

The plaintiffs, police officers, alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office by Crown counsel.

The court, applying the principles from Beardsley v. Ontario Provincial Police, found that the limitation period issue involved legal and factual complexities, including the discoverability of a potentially novel claim, and therefore should not be determined at a preliminary stage before pleadings were closed.

The preliminary question was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and the motion to dismiss on this ground was denied.

The accused brought an application for a Rowbotham order seeking a stay of criminal charges until the Attorney General funded defence counsel.

The court considered the test requiring proof that legal aid had been refused and exhausted, that the accused was indigent, and that the absence of counsel would compromise the right to a fair trial.

Although the court accepted that the accused likely required counsel for a fair trial and might be able to demonstrate indigence, it found that the lack of state funding resulted from the accused’s own conduct in repeatedly discharging counsel and causing trial delays.

The court held that this conduct disentitled the accused from obtaining a Rowbotham order.

The application was dismissed and amicus curiae was appointed to assist the trial court.