Ansuya Pachai

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change child and spousal support orders.

The motion judge dismissed the motion under Rule 1(8)(b) of the Family Law Rules due to the appellant's failure to comply with prior support and costs orders, combined with an absence of good faith effort to pay.

The motion judge also rejected the appellant's fraud claim as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the assignee (City of Toronto) maintained party status to the extent of its financial interests, that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion to dismiss based on non-compliance, and that the fraud allegation was both irrelevant and statute-barred.

Following a divided outcome on an application regarding taxi licensing by-laws, the intervenor, Taxiworkers Association of Ontario, sought costs against the applicant.

The court denied costs for the intervention and injunction motions because the intervenor was not a necessary party and participated on its own initiative.

However, the court awarded the intervenor $2,500 in costs for the main application, recognizing that its evidence was critical to the court's determination of the notice issue.

Following a prior decision granting Rule 21 motions and permanently staying a counter-application, the court addressed costs.

The moving parties sought full indemnity costs, arguing the counter-application contained unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty, illegality, and conspiracy against participants in the Canadian justice system.

The court held that such allegations justified a full indemnity award.

After reviewing the claimed amounts and correcting a minor double-counting issue, the court fixed costs payable forthwith to both moving parties on a joint and several basis against certain self-represented litigants.

The applicant sought an order quashing a municipal by-law that reduced the operating hours of licensed body rub parlours and holistic centres, and sought a declaration that the licensing by-laws had expired under the five‑year sunset clause in s.150(13) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The court held that the sunset clause no longer applied because Part IV of the Municipal Act, 2001 had been repealed by the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 and replaced by broader licensing powers under the City of Toronto Act, 2006, which contained no sunset provision.

The court further held that municipal councils are not required to have “hard evidence” of harm before passing a by‑law and that the court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining legality rather than reviewing the reasonableness of municipal policy decisions.

The applicant failed to establish that the by‑law was illegal or enacted for an improper purpose.

The application was dismissed.

The moving parties brought Rule 21 motions seeking to stay or dismiss a counter-application alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy involving numerous judges, lawyers, public officials, and institutions.

The applicants alleged systemic corruption, crimes against humanity, and other misconduct within the Ontario justice system, and sought extensive relief including billions of dollars in damages.

The court found the allegations to be patently incredible, scandalous, and incapable of proof, concluding that the proceeding had no reasonable prospect of success and constituted an abuse of process.

Applying Rule 21.01(3)(c) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction to control abusive litigation, the court permanently stayed the counter-application.

The decision emphasized the court’s role in preventing vexatious proceedings from consuming judicial resources.

Applicants sought a declaration that a municipal by-law banning the possession, sale, or consumption of shark fin products within the city was ultra vires.

The court examined whether the by-law had a valid municipal purpose under the City of Toronto Act, 2006, including whether it related to the environmental, social, or health well-being of the city.

While recognizing the deferential approach generally afforded to municipal by-laws, the court held that the alleged environmental objective of preventing shark extinction did not constitute a municipal issue and that the by-law would not produce an identifiable benefit to the city.

The court further found that cruelty to sharks occurring outside the municipality and speculative health concerns did not sufficiently relate to the social or health well-being of city residents.

The by-law was therefore beyond the city's legislative authority.

Two applicants sought judicial review of municipal by-laws implementing a volume-based solid waste user fee and associated rebate program introduced by the City of Toronto.

The applicants argued that the waste collection charge was in substance an unlawful tax affecting provincial tax ratio rules and that the rebate constituted an impermissible redistribution of property taxes contrary to the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The court held that the waste charge was a valid user fee because a sufficient nexus existed between the amount collected and the cost of providing waste services.

The court further held that the rebate was properly characterized as a municipal grant authorized under s. 83 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 rather than a tax rebate.

The applications to quash the relevant by-law provisions were dismissed.