Andrea Marie Bolieiro

This decision grants an interlocutory injunction exempting all existing supervised consumption sites (SCSs) in Ontario from the operation of section 2 of the Community Care and Recovery Act, 2024, pending a final decision on the merits.

The court finds that the three-part test for injunctive relief is met: there is a serious issue to be tried regarding Charter rights, irreparable harm would result from SCS closures, and the balance of convenience favours the applicants.

The ruling details the public health crisis of opioid use, the role of SCSs in harm reduction, and the disproportionate impact of closures on marginalized populations.

Paul Boone, a person under disability, and his parents, challenged the constitutionality of Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 5 of O. Reg. 195/04, arguing they compel disclosure of solicitor-client or litigation privileged information, thereby infringing s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The court dismissed both constitutional challenges, finding a lack of factual basis to support the assertions of discriminatory effect and concluding that the impugned provisions do not mandate or inevitably require the disclosure of privileged information.

The motion for approval of a partial settlement was adjourned for the plaintiffs to provide the necessary evidentiary support.

This decision provides reasons for an inquiry into an incident where the accused, David Baichoo, appeared in a security gown, naked underneath, on the first day of his first-degree murder trial.

The incident, which led to the loss of a trial day and compromised the dignity of the proceedings, was attributed to the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC).

The court found that the TSDC's reliance on unreliable body scans for contraband and the indifference of staff, particularly Sgt. Polanski, led to the deplorable situation.

Despite the subsequent abandonment of the defence's application for costs, the court issued these reasons to highlight systemic failures in the treatment of accused persons and to ensure accountability.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought leave to intervene in a pending motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court decision dismissing a Charter challenge to Ontario's sex education curriculum directive.

The OHRC argued it would make unique contributions by addressing the public interest dimension and alleged errors in the Divisional Court's discrimination analysis.

The motion judge dismissed the OHRC's request for intervener status on the motion for leave to appeal, finding that such interventions should be rare and extraordinary, and that the applicants were already capable of advancing these arguments.

The motion judge adjourned the OHRC's request for intervener status on any subsequent appeal.

Appellants sought a declaration that section 14 of the Health Insurance Act, which prohibits OHIP-eligible Ontario residents from purchasing private health insurance for OHIP-covered services, violated their Charter rights under section 7.

The appellants' OHIP coverage had been cancelled for failure to prove Ontario residency, and they claimed private insurers refused to sell them insurance citing section 14.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the appellants were not affected by section 14 itself but rather by an alleged misinterpretation of it by private insurers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that section 14 of the HIA, rather than a misinterpretation by non-parties, was affecting them.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, commenced three separate actions alleging various misconducts over 20 years against numerous defendants, including government entities, police services, healthcare facilities, and media corporations.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss or stay the actions as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, citing rambling pleadings, grandiose claims for damages (exceeding $800 million), and potential limitation period issues.

The court found the actions to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process but, considering the plaintiff's self-represented status and lack of prior opportunity to amend, decided to continue the stay rather than dismiss the actions outright.

The plaintiff was granted a limited opportunity to seek leave to amend his Statements of Claim by a specified date, failing which the actions could be dismissed.

The plaintiff, Conrey Francis, brought a proposed class action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, alleging negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to the use of Administrative Segregation (solitary confinement) in correctional facilities.

The parties sought approval of a consent order certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The court found that all criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including an identifiable class, common issues of fact or law, preferability of a class proceeding, and an adequate representative plaintiff.

The certification motion was granted.