Andi Jin

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

This case management endorsement addresses procedural issues arising from a request by Concerned Citizens of North Stormont to discuss a possible recusal motion.

The court clarifies that allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias should be raised at the earliest opportunity, with counsel's knowledge being relevant.

It also discusses the court's jurisdiction to issue a Rule 2.1 notice in such circumstances and acknowledges the role of ongoing settlement discussions.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Divisional Court order that lifted an earlier stay and dismissed their application for judicial review.

The moving parties had been selected in a lottery to apply for retail cannabis store licences but were disqualified by the Registrar for failing to provide an irrevocable letter of credit within five days of notification.

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part test for granting a stay: serious issue to be determined, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

While the court found a serious issue existed and acknowledged potential irreparable harm, it determined that the balance of convenience strongly favoured denying the stay due to interference with government policy, public interest in expanding cannabis retail access, and the fact that the moving parties' position had already been rejected by the Divisional Court.

A mortgage broker appealed the dismissal of its negligence claim against the Crown arising from fraud perpetrated by an individual who filed a fraudulent notice of change with the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, falsely identifying himself as a director and officer of a corporation.

The appellant relied on a corporation profile report obtained from the Ministry when advancing $1.8 million in loans.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that no duty of care arose at the first stage of the Anns/Cooper test.

The governing legislation did not contemplate a private law duty of care, and the payment of a fee for access to public corporate records was insufficient to establish proximity.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from an order striking out her statement of claim without leave to amend.

The motion judge had found numerous pleading shortcomings and determined the action constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant's motion for an extension was dismissed on the grounds of: (1) a lengthy and unexplained delay of approximately 10 months; (2) lack of evidentiary support for claimed medical impediments; (3) absence of merit to the underlying appeal; and (4) the overall justice of the case, particularly given the multi-year history of frivolous and vexatious proceedings by the applicant.

The applicant, Dellen Millard, facing a first-degree murder trial, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court found the first two branches of the Rowbotham test (denial of Legal Aid, serious and complex case requiring counsel) were met, but the third branch (lack of financial means) was disputed due to complex asset holdings under receivership.

The court adjourned the Rowbotham application sine die, directing the Receiver to apply to the Commercial List for the release of vendor take-back mortgage monies and cash from Millard Properties Inc. to fund Millard's defence, deeming it just and equitable given Millard's role in creating these assets.

The applicant, facing serious charges including membership in a criminal organization and fraud, applied for a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

While the court accepted that the case was complex and the applicant had been denied Legal Aid, the application was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove indigence.

The applicant provided insufficient financial documentation and failed to account for the proceeds from the sale of a home.