Andrea Huckins

Four organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the certification of a class action against the Province of Ontario and 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeal engages the continued application of the Ragoonanan principle, which requires a representative plaintiff to have a cause of action against each defendant.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to the Class Action Clinic and Women of Class, and granted leave on limited issues to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, finding their perspectives would be useful to the court.

The Superintendent of Career Colleges requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that lifted a Notice of Immediate Suspension and ordered the Superintendent not to carry out a Notice of Proposal to Revoke the appellant's registration as a career college.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator made errors of law and fact by making contradictory findings regarding the appellant's falsification of student training records and by improperly reading an 'intent to defraud' requirement into the strict compliance provisions of the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The original decision was cancelled and a rehearing was ordered.

A case management conference was held to set the timetable for two grouped appeals arising from a decision certifying a class action against the Province of Ontario but declining to certify it against 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeals will be heard by a five-judge panel to consider whether the court should depart from the Ragoonanan principle.

The case management judge set the schedule for responding materials, intervention motions, and factums.

The Toronto Revolver Club sought declarations that the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario lacks authority to conduct warrantless inspections of shooting ranges and to impose conditions on shooting range approvals.

The court found that while the first issue presented no live controversy, the CFO has no authority to attach conditions to shooting range approvals under the Firearms Act.

The court applied statutory interpretation principles, finding that the Act and Regulations do not expressly grant such power and that the power is not practically necessary to achieve Parliament's public safety objectives, as the CFO retains broad revocation authority.

The applicants, two career colleges offering truck driving programs, sought judicial review of the Superintendent of Career Colleges' decision to revoke their program approvals.

The revocations were issued without prior notice or an opportunity to respond, following investigations into the programs.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence relevant to procedural fairness and applied the Baker factors.

The court found that given the severe financial impact, the lack of a statutory appeal right, and the applicants' legitimate expectation of progressive discipline, the Superintendent breached the duty of procedural fairness.

The revocations were set aside and costs were awarded to the applicants.

This is an appeal from a pleadings motion where the Crown (Ontario) sued Sanjay Madan and his family (appellants) for fraud.

The appellants counterclaimed, alleging contributory negligence by Ontario, misuse of a Mareva injunction, vicarious liability for Sanjay's intrusion upon seclusion, and direct/vicarious negligence by Ontario.

The motion judge struck these parts of the pleadings and refused leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that a victim's negligence is not a defence to fraud, the "clean hands" doctrine does not apply to mere carelessness, and claims related to the Mareva injunction were unsupported.

The Court further held that Ontario could not be vicariously liable for Sanjay's intrusion upon seclusion as there was no nexus between his employment and the privacy violation, and that Crown liability in tort is vicarious, not direct, requiring proximity to identified Crown employees for negligence claims.

The applicants, a group of cottage owners, sought judicial review of a work permit issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to the respondents for the construction of a dock and walkway on a property that was the site of a former mine.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and breached their procedural fairness rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the MNRF's decision was reasonable as it relied on expert environmental assessments from other ministries and attached appropriate mitigation conditions.

The court also held that the MNRF met its procedural fairness obligations, noting that formal reasons were not required for a building permit application.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to determine the appropriate sentence for Trinity Bible Chapel and six individuals (the "Contemnors") who were found in contempt of a January 22, 2021 court order.

The order restrained them from holding gatherings of more than 10 persons, contravening Ontario Regulation 82/20.

The Contemnors had intentionally and publicly breached the order, having previously expressed an intent to engage in civil disobedience rather than challenge the legislation constitutionally.

The court considered proportionality, mitigating and aggravating factors, deterrence, denunciation, and similar sentences.

The court imposed fines totaling $38,000 ($15,000 for Trinity Bible Chapel, and varying amounts for the individual Contemnors based on their involvement) and fixed costs of $45,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, payable jointly and severally by the respondents.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondents, a church and its elders, for breaching a court order that restrained them from holding gatherings of more than 10 persons in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the respondents had notice of it, and they intentionally breached it by holding a service with approximately 225 people.

All respondents were found in contempt, and the matter was adjourned for sentencing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to perform work on its on-site septic system.

Following mediation, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement Agreement setting out technical steps for rehabilitation and monitoring.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference call where the parties provided an update on the implementation of the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered a further status update to be held by telephone conference call.

The applicant, an OPP Sergeant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding findings of misconduct for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing a helicopter relocation.

The applicant argued the Hearing Officer was biased and erred in denying a disclosure motion, which prevented him from establishing a whistleblower defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and agreeing with the Commission that the whistleblower defence failed because the applicant did not first raise his concerns internally with his chain of command.

The applicant, an off-duty police officer, spoke at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization despite being ordered not to attend or speak.

He was convicted of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction but upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under s. 49 of the Police Services Act.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider s. 80(2) of the Act, which requires a connection between off-duty conduct and the occupational requirements or reputation of the police force.

Given the Commission's findings on the discreditable conduct charge, the court concluded the s. 80(2) test could not be met and revoked the insubordination conviction.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to perform work on its on-site septic system, including ceasing the discharge of raw sewage and retaining a licensed waste hauler.

Following the dismissal of a stay motion, the parties requested Tribunal-assisted mediation at a prehearing conference.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a mediation session, with a further prehearing conference to follow if mediation is unsuccessful.

The appellant nursing home brought a motion for a stay of a Director's Order requiring it to pump and dispose of sewage off-site due to a malfunctioning septic system.

The appellant argued that the costs of compliance would cause irreparable financial harm, potentially leading to closure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to prove irreparable harm, as the short-term costs were not shown to be fatal to the business.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the Director's precautionary approach to protect water resources.

The Crown and Ontario Provincial Police appealed a disclosure order requiring production of a drug recognition expert's rolling log.

The rolling log documented all drug evaluations conducted by the DRE from training through certification.

The respondent was charged with drug-impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The trial judge ordered disclosure of the rolling log, and the motion judge affirmed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rolling log was "obviously relevant" material subject to first party disclosure under the Stinchcombe regime, and that disclosure was permitted under the exception in section 258.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code even when anonymized.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an off-duty incident at a Human Rights Tribunal hearing, where he loudly accused superior officers of being racists.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the objective test for discreditable conduct was met and that off-duty conduct could constitute insubordination under the Police Services Act where there is a connection to the reputation of the police force.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours was confirmed.

The appellant, a police sergeant and helicopter pilot, appealed his convictions for breach of confidence and discreditable conduct, as well as his penalty of a one-year demotion.

The charges arose after he published a letter in a local newspaper criticizing the OPP's decision to relocate a helicopter unit, arguing it jeopardized public safety.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer erred in denying disclosure, refusing to recuse herself for bias, and rejecting his whistleblower defence.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and agreeing that the whistleblower defence failed because the appellant did not attempt to raise his concerns internally before going to the media.

The convictions and penalty were confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly supervise a sudden death investigation, including failing to secure the scene, preserve evidence, and call specialized units after concluding prematurely that a motor vehicle was not involved.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's factual findings and confirmed the conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the appellant's conduct crossed the line from a performance issue to misconduct.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for speaking at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization while off-duty, contrary to a direct order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under section 49(1) of the Police Services Act.

However, the Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction, ruling that the Hearing Officer erred by applying a subjective test rather than an objective reasonable person test to assess whether the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The applicants, employed as correctional officers, filed human rights applications alleging reprisal and discrimination.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, their legal counsel, the African Canadian Legal Clinic, ceased representation due to funding issues.

The applicants requested an adjournment and an extension of time to file witness statements and documents.

The Tribunal found the sudden loss of counsel and the complexity of the case constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment, and granted the requests.