Andi Jin

The applicant sought judicial review of the AGCO's decision refusing a retail sales authorization for a cannabis store.

The AGCO rejected the application because the proposed location was within 150 metres of a school, measured using a straight-line method.

The applicant argued the distance should be measured by the shortest publicly available walking route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the AGCO's straight-line measurement method was a reasonable interpretation of the Cannabis Licence Act and its regulations, and that the method was sufficiently transparent to the public.

A case management endorsement addressing correspondence from counsel for the Concerned Citizens of North Stormont regarding a potential recusal motion based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court noted that no decision had been made to proceed with the motion and discussed the potential application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court left it to the parties to decide how to proceed, noting that ongoing settlement discussions could affect their decisions.

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.

Nation Rise sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to revoke its Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Minister had revoked the approval based on concerns about harm to bat maternity colonies, an issue not raised by the parties before the Environmental Review Tribunal or on appeal.

The Divisional Court quashed the Minister's decision, finding it unreasonable because the Minister lacked statutory authority to raise new issues on appeal, applied the wrong legal test by using a precautionary approach, and misapprehended the evidence.

The Court also found the Minister breached procedural fairness by failing to give notice of the new issue and denying the parties an opportunity to make submissions on remedy.

The ERT's approval of the project was reinstated.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment revoking their authority for a wind farm project.

Three procedural motions were brought: CanWEA sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court, the Landowners sought leave to intervene as parties, and the respondent moved to strike fresh evidence filed by the applicants.

The court granted CanWEA leave to intervene, denied the Landowners leave to intervene without prejudice to their right to bring a separate application, and adjourned the motion to strike evidence to the panel hearing the underlying application.

The moving party Justice of the Peace brought a motion to quash the responding party's Notice of Application for Judicial Review.

The responding party sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Justice of the Peace to lay an information against a municipal prosecutor under the Provincial Offences Act.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that it lacked jurisdiction.

Under s. 142(4) of the Provincial Offences Act, the Judicial Review Procedure Act does not apply, and s. 140(1) provides that such relief must be sought in the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent Registrar successfully resisted an application for judicial review regarding the cannabis retail lottery and sought costs.

The applicants argued that costs should not be awarded to a decision-maker that successfully resists judicial review, relying on an alleged overriding principle.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting that in Ontario, costs are awarded to administrative tribunals acting in an adversarial role to defend their decisions.

The court awarded the Registrar costs of the stay motion and the application, fixing the quantum at $40,000.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Registrar's decision to disqualify them from the cannabis retail store lottery process for failing to provide original copies of a standby letter of credit by the specified deadline.

The applicants argued the disqualification was unreasonable, the lottery rules were ultra vires, and they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar's decision was reasonable given the applicants' failure to provide functional contact information and their failure to meet the clear deadline.

The Court also held the rules requiring a letter of credit and permitting its drawdown were intra vires, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

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.

The defendants were completely successful on a motion for third-party production of documents from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

They sought costs of $4,826.85 on a partial indemnity scale.

The SIU argued there should be no costs but conceded the quantum was reasonable.

The court awarded the requested costs, noting the documents were highly relevant and the SIU had opposed production based mainly on its own policies rather than the specific relevance to the litigation.

The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against a police officer and the police services board alleging unreasonable use of force.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for production of interview records and notes from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) regarding four civilian witnesses.

The SIU opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the documents were highly relevant to the issue of reasonable force and that it would be unfair to require the defendants to proceed to trial without them, especially since two witnesses could not be located and two refused to consent to production.

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.

The applicant brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided for her trial on charges of fail to comply with a recognizance, criminal harassment, and assault with a weapon.

The Crown conceded that the applicant was indigent and ineligible for Legal Aid.

The court considered whether counsel was essential to a fair trial, examining the seriousness of charges, complexity of proceedings, and the applicant's ability to participate effectively.

The court found that while the applicant faced health challenges and limited education, she was intelligent and articulate, the case involved only credibility issues without legal complexity, and judicial assistance could adequately equip her for trial.

The application was dismissed.