Andi Jin

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 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 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.

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.