Andrew Jin

The appellants appealed the case conference judge's dismissal of their action against the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The action was dismissed as a nullity because there was no pleading of bad faith, the PGT had immunity, the action should have been brought against Ontario, and the requisite 60-day statutory notice was not given.

The appellants argued the judge erred by determining the subject matter on the merits, prejudicing their second action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the action as a nullity without prejudice to a new action against Ontario, and made no decision on the merits.

The plaintiffs, who were previously found to have fraudulently over-encumbered two properties and granted sham mortgages to frustrate creditors, commenced an action against the Public Guardian and Trustee challenging the Accountant's interpretation of a prior court order regarding the distribution of sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Accountant owed money and an order for payment.

The defendant sought dismissal on the basis that the action was barred under the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and that proper notice had not been provided under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged bad faith, that the action was statute-barred, and that the required notice had not been provided.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision upholding the suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The suspension was initiated after a neurologist submitted a medical condition report indicating the appellant suffered a prolonged loss of consciousness, possibly a seizure or syncope.

The appellant argued the episode was merely a nap and challenged the LAT's refusal to grant a confidentiality order, its factual findings, and its procedural fairness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the LAT's factual findings and no errors of law or procedural fairness in its handling of the hearing or the reconsideration request.

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.

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.

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.