Andrew Csont Dekany

In a complex constitutional case regarding irregular migrant rights to healthcare, a dispute arose during case management over who should bear the cost of producing voluminous third-party medical records.

The plaintiff provided authorizations for the records but argued she could not afford the substantial third-party fees (e.g., $12,105 for one hospital).

The court held that the plaintiff satisfied her disclosure obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure by providing the authorizations.

Applying principles of proportionality and noting the public interest nature of the litigation and the plaintiff's impecuniosity, the court ordered that if Canada wishes to obtain the records, it must pay the third-party fees at first instance.

This costs endorsement addresses the plaintiff’s entitlement to costs following a successful motion for exemption from mandatory mediation and related matters.

The court reviews the scale and quantum of costs, the relevance of expert evidence, the impact of funding by the Court Challenges Project, and the apportionment of costs between motions.

The court ultimately awards costs to the plaintiff, finding them reasonable and incidental to the proceeding.

This decision addresses the applications of various organizations to intervene in a constitutional challenge regarding migrant access to health care in Canada.

The court grants leave to several coalitions and organizations to intervene as friends of the court, with some permitted to review productions and attend discovery.

The court also addresses the scope of the deemed undertaking rule, the discretion to relieve intervenors from costs, and the exemption of the matter from mandatory mediation.

The ruling clarifies the criteria for intervention, the rights of intervenors, and the balancing of public interest and litigation efficiency.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, sought reconsideration of a prior decision granting the Migrant Worker Coalition leave to intervene as a friend of the court.

Canada argued that the court's initial decision was based on the erroneous factual assumption that the deceased plaintiff had entered Canada on an authorized work permit, when she had actually entered as a visitor and overstayed.

Justice Papageorgiou amended the factual error in the reasons but maintained the decision to grant the Coalition intervenor status.

The court concluded that the deceased's precarious situation of working without status after her visitor visa expired remained highly analogous to the precarious circumstances and healthcare access challenges faced by migrant workers.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions for intervention by various public interest groups and a motion by the plaintiff for exemption from mandatory mediation and a blanket order regarding disclosure.

The court granted intervention status as "friends of the court" to the CCPI Coalition, Amnesty International, ESCR-Net, Colour of Poverty Coalition, and Migrant Worker Coalition, with varying rights including access to productions and attendance at discovery for some.

The court also granted the plaintiff's request to exempt the matter from mandatory mediation, citing the public interest nature and previous attempts at resolution.

The plaintiff's request for a blanket disclosure order to third parties was adjourned.

All intervenors were relieved from liability for costs.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing a motion to strike an action.

The motion judge had declared the respondent's claims timely and within the Ontario court's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by declaring the claim timely and precluding the appellant from raising a limitations defence on a Rule 21 motion, as fact-finding is generally not appropriate at that stage.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction over the matter.

The appeal was allowed in part, striking the order that precluded the limitations defence.

The plaintiff successfully defended a motion brought by the defendant to dismiss her Charter action regarding exclusion from health care coverage.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $181,666.71, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $121,111.14.

The court found no justification for substantial indemnity costs and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $92,000 all inclusive.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action for damages and declaratory relief arising from the denial of public health care while she was an irregular migrant.

The plaintiff alleged violations of her Charter rights and customary international law, relying on a decision by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction, the claims are not statute-barred, it is not plain and obvious that the claims are barred by res judicata, and the claims disclose a reasonable cause of action that is not doomed to fail.

The respondent was charged with driving while holding a hand-held wireless communication device after a police officer observed her holding a cellphone while stopped at a red light.

The respondent claimed she had only momentarily picked it up after it fell to the floor.

The trial court convicted her, but the appeal judge allowed her appeal, finding that 'holding' required sustained physical contact.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the ordinary meaning of 'holding' and the road safety objectives of the Highway Traffic Act dictate a complete prohibition on having a cellphone in one's hand while driving, regardless of the duration.

The appellant appealed her conviction for holding a hand-held wireless communication device while driving, contrary to s. 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

At trial, she testified that she merely picked up her cell phone from the floor to place it on the passenger seat while stopped at a red light.

The appeal judge held that while the prosecution does not need to prove the device was operable or that the driver intended to use it, the term 'holding' requires a sustained physical holding and does not capture a momentary handling of the device.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for multiple offences, including home invasion, death threats, obstructing justice, perjury, and fabricating evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions related to the home invasion and threats, finding the Crown's case overwhelming and the appellant's version of events lacking an air of reality.

However, the court set aside the convictions for obstructing justice, perjury, and fabricating evidence, and ordered a new trial on those counts, because the trial judge erroneously relied on the non-existent testimony of a witness who did not testify.

The court substituted a global sentence of six months' imprisonment for the upheld convictions, noting that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the trial scheduling judge, who had ordered the plaintiff to pay costs thrown away as a term of granting a further adjournment of the trial.

The plaintiff also sought an adjournment of this motion to obtain transcripts.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment of the motion and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in the scheduling judge's exercise of discretion to award costs as a term of adjournment, particularly given the history of the proceeding and a prior unpaid costs order.