Andi Jin

The appellants appealed the case conference judge's dismissal of their action against the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The action was dismissed as a nullity because there was no pleading of bad faith, the PGT had immunity, the action should have been brought against Ontario, and the requisite 60-day statutory notice was not given.

The appellants argued the judge erred by determining the subject matter on the merits, prejudicing their second action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the action as a nullity without prejudice to a new action against Ontario, and made no decision on the merits.

The plaintiffs, who were previously found to have fraudulently over-encumbered two properties and granted sham mortgages to frustrate creditors, commenced an action against the Public Guardian and Trustee challenging the Accountant's interpretation of a prior court order regarding the distribution of sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Accountant owed money and an order for payment.

The defendant sought dismissal on the basis that the action was barred under the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and that proper notice had not been provided under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged bad faith, that the action was statute-barred, and that the required notice had not been provided.

The appellant Ministry of Transportation appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against a contractor as statute-barred.

The parties' standard form construction contract required a notice of protest and alternative dispute resolution to be completed within two years of contract completion.

However, the referee's decision was not released until after this two-year period expired.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in interpreting the contract; it is commercially absurd to require a party to protest a decision before it is released.

Because the contractual limitation period could not apply, the statutory two-year limitation period governed, and the appellant's action was commenced in time.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash two Orders in Council (OICs) related to the expropriation of its lands for a transit-oriented community project.

The first OIC designated the lands as transit-oriented community land, removing the right to a hearing of necessity, while the second authorized the expropriation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the Auer framework to find that both OICs were reasonably within the scope of authority delegated by the enabling legislation.

The court rejected arguments that the OICs were arbitrary, discriminatory, unnecessary, or made in bad faith.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision upholding the suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The suspension was initiated after a neurologist submitted a medical condition report indicating the appellant suffered a prolonged loss of consciousness, possibly a seizure or syncope.

The appellant argued the episode was merely a nap and challenged the LAT's refusal to grant a confidentiality order, its factual findings, and its procedural fairness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the LAT's factual findings and no errors of law or procedural fairness in its handling of the hearing or the reconsideration request.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that granted judicial review, quashing an administrative decision and a request for bids related to the procurement of identification cards.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required card stock to be produced in Canada, which Thales DIS Canada Inc. (Thales) challenged as discriminatory under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found the MTO's decision and request for bids unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review by conducting a de novo assessment instead of focusing on the administrative decision-maker's reasons.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable and that the request for bids was not separately subject to judicial review given the existence of an adequate internal dispute resolution process.

The Third Party Defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, brought a Rule 21.01 motion to strike a third-party claim by 1458875 Ontario Corporation O/A Yorktown Motors.

Yorktown alleged negligence against Ontario for issuing fraudulent vehicle permits and Used Vehicle Information Packages (UVIPs) for a non-existent vehicle, which Yorktown relied upon in a financing transaction.

The court found that the claim was barred by section 11(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, as the issuance of a vehicle permit constitutes a regulatory decision.

Alternatively, the court found it plain and obvious that no private law duty of care existed between Ontario and Yorktown, as the relevant legislation did not create such a duty, and there was no sufficient proximity or policy reason to establish a new duty.

The motion to strike was granted.

This appeal concerned a proposed class action by inmates and their families against Bell Canada and the Ontario government regarding allegedly unreasonable and unconscionable collect call rates from correctional facilities.

The motion judge had dismissed claims for an ultra vires tax and a Telecommunications Act breach, and permanently stayed other claims (unjust enrichment, consumer protection, unconscionable contracts, breach of fiduciary duty), deferring to the CRTC's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the ultra vires tax claim, finding the commissions paid to Ontario were proprietary/contractual charges, not taxes.

However, the Court substituted the permanent stay with a temporary stay for the remaining claims.

This was to allow the CRTC to first determine whether it had forborne from regulating these specific rates and, if not, to adjudicate their reasonableness, ensuring access to justice for the appellants if the CRTC declined jurisdiction.

The applicant purchased a gas station and convenience store and was subsequently served with a notice of prohibition under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, suspending tobacco sales for six months.

The notice was based on tobacco sales convictions against the previous owner.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the prohibition was arbitrary and breached procedural fairness since it had no connection to the offences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the legislation mandates an automatic prohibition upon repeat convictions at a specific location, intentionally placing the onus on prospective purchasers to conduct due diligence.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness as the Minister's duty to issue the notice was mandatory.

The applicant sought judicial review of a government procurement Request for Bids (RFB) for identity card production and the subsequent dismissal of its bid dispute complaint.

The applicant argued that the RFB's domestic production requirement violated the non-discrimination provisions of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found that the administrative decision dismissing the complaint was unreasonable, as it failed to properly apply the test for necessity under the public safety exception of CETA.

The Court quashed both the decision and the RFB, finding that the domestic production requirement was not justified on the record.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action on behalf of prisoners and their families, alleging that Bell Canada and Ontario charged unconscionable rates for collect calls from provincial correctional facilities.

The plaintiffs sought certification, while the defendants brought cross-motions to stay the action, arguing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice struck the plaintiffs' claims for an ultra vires tax and breach of the Telecommunications Act, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

The court permanently stayed the remaining claims, concluding that the pith and substance of the dispute concerned telecommunications rates, which fall squarely within the specialized jurisdiction and remedial authority of the CRTC.

The applicant sought judicial review of four Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions that denied his appeals and reconsideration requests regarding the impoundment of his vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded twice after the applicant drove while his license was suspended for impaired driving convictions.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness and held that the Tribunal's decisions, including its findings on exceptional hardship and the non-retroactive effect of a criminal driving prohibition stay, were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The court awarded costs to the defendants, applying principles for self-represented litigants' costs.

The Attorney General's costs were awarded as sought, Ms. Goldenfajn-Abrahams's costs were reduced due to an excessive hourly rate and hours, and Ms. Roll's (a self-represented lawyer) costs were awarded nominally due to insufficient evidence of lost opportunity costs, in line with the Benarroch decision.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), his former spouse, and her lawyer, seeking damages for alleged errors in enforcing child support arrears.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues regarding the accuracy of support arrears that had already been determined in multiple family law proceedings.

The court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the action as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) denying a film tax credit on the basis that its production, Reflections, was not a 'documentary'.

The applicant argued the OMDC's interpretation was unreasonable and fettered by anti-evangelical Christian bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and found the OMDC's interpretation of 'documentary' and its application to the production were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

In a proposed class action regarding the rates charged for collect calls made by prisoners in Ontario correctional facilities, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by an employee of the defendant telecommunications company.

The plaintiffs argued the affiant was improperly giving expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the affiant was providing factual evidence regarding the regulatory framework and the operation of the telephone system, not expert opinion.

The Crown applied for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from contravening COVID-19 public health restrictions at three churches.

The court found that the Crown established clear and repeated breaches of capacity limits, masking, and physical distancing requirements.

The respondents failed to establish any exceptional circumstances, such as a pre-existing Charter right or evidence that the unlawful conduct would cease.

The application was allowed and the restraining order was issued.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to adopt a transitional regulation exempting a proposed waste management facility from the natural heritage policies of the 2019 Growth Plan.

The applicant also sought to quash a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that struck its appeal issues based on this regulation.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister exceeded his authority under s. 19(1)(d) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005, as the regulation did not address a genuine transitional matter but rather granted an exemption to key policies adopted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The regulation was declared ultra vires, and the LPAT decision was set aside and remitted.

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.