Administrative Law

This is a sentencing decision following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a workplace fatality.

The corporate defendant and two individual supervisors were found guilty of failing to ensure proper rigging of concrete blocks and adequate training/supervision, leading to a worker's death.

The court applied established sentencing principles, emphasizing deterrence and considering the increased maximum penalties for OHSA offences.

Fines were imposed on the corporate defendant and the two individual supervisors, reflecting the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence.

This is a costs endorsement following successful motions by the State of California and the Attorney General of Quebec to dismiss claims brought against them by W.O. Stinson & Son Limited.

The court had previously dismissed Stinson's claim against California based on state immunity under the State Immunity Act and against Quebec due to Crown immunity.

Stinson argued for no costs, citing unfair treatment due to the cancellation of Ontario's cap-and-trade program and alleged profit by California and Quebec from Stinson's losses.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no reason to deny costs to the successful parties.

The court then assessed the reasonableness of the requested partial indemnity costs, reducing the amounts sought by both California and Quebec, and specifically reducing Quebec's expert witness disbursement.

M.F. appealed a decision affirming his incapacity to make treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic medication.

The Consent and Capacity Board and the Superior Court of Justice had previously confirmed Dr. Milovic's finding of incapacity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly weighed the evidence, including the medical opinion that M.F.'s psychosis was due to schizophrenia, not drug-induced psychosis, despite arguments about cannabis use.

The appellant, Behrouz Salehi, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a 2016 Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed his appeal.

The motion was based on newly discovered facts related to his negligence claim against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario concerning his licensing application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a motion where the underlying order was affirmed on appeal; such motions must be brought before the Superior Court.

The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the tenant's eviction due to fire and egress hazards caused by hoarding.

The tenant sought multiple reviews, which were dismissed.

The tenant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal and lift the stay of eviction, arguing no question of law was raised and the appeal lacked merit.

The court found no error of law in the Board's decision that the tenant had notice and was able to participate in the hearing, nor in its consideration of the tenant's circumstances or the landlord's accommodation efforts.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted, and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and struck her pleadings as frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious.

The core of her claim concerned how her insurer handled her statutory accident benefits claims, alleging a conspiracy with healthcare practitioners to stage examinations and produce false reports, and breach of privacy.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to statutory accident benefits under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, regardless of how the claims are framed.

The Court also upheld the denial of leave to amend pleadings and dismissed the appeal regarding costs due to procedural non-compliance and lack of error in principle.

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.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition dated September 10, 2018, concerning an NCR accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Board's imposition of a detention order in place of a conditional discharge, arguing the detention was not necessary and appropriate and was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant had absconded from her group home, breached conditions by using substances, and demonstrated diminished insight into her illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes given the appellant's increased risk profile and the need for hospital flexibility in managing her care and community placement.

The appellant appealed from the refusal of a Superior Court judge to grant mandamus with certiorari in aid in relation to a decision of a justice of the peace refusing to issue process on a private prosecution.

The appellant sought an adjournment at the hearing on grounds of efficiency and personal circumstances, which was refused.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the justice of the peace had not committed any jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or other error permitting Superior Court review.

An appellant found not criminally responsible for theft under $5,000 appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant argued there was no evidence he posed a significant risk of physical or psychological violence to the public, citing the absence of violent behaviour in recent years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety based on his mental health history, criminal record, aggressive behaviour in detention, resistance to treatment, risk assessment scores, and lack of insight into his condition.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking a finding that the subject child (S) is a Metis child under section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and that the child has no connection to or engagement with any First Nations, Inuit or Metis community.

The child's father claimed Metis ancestry but did not self-identify as Metis nor identify the child as such.

The mother denied any Indigenous status.

The court found the evidence insufficient to support the Society's motion, noting critical gaps in the affidavit evidence regarding the basis of the father's Metis claim, the source of the relatives' self-identification, and the child's own preferences.

The court adjourned the motion pending better evidence and clarification of the Society's contradictory requests.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered in his absence under section 9.1(1) of the Provincial Offences Act for failing to stop at an amber light contrary to section 144(15) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant did not appear at trial on July 25, 2018, and was deemed not to dispute the charge.

The appellant argued the Certificate of Offence was a nullity because his address was recorded incorrectly.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the address was surplusage and that the certificate contained all essential information necessary for the appellant to make an informed decision about how to respond to the charge.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought a permanent injunction against Alan Canon and his associated corporations to prevent them from performing controlled acts and using prohibited professional titles without proper licensing.

Canon, who had a history of breaching undertakings and disciplinary actions from another college, failed to appear or file evidence.

The court granted the statutory injunction, finding clear breaches of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and the Medicine Act, 1991, and awarded costs to the College.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 12, 2017, regarding his placement and security regime.

The appellant and Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care argued that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable.

The Board had concluded that public safety would be compromised if the appellant was transferred unless the maximum security regime at Waypoint could be effectively replicated at the receiving hospital, which would negate the purpose of transfer.

The court noted that further assessment by an independent assessor remained possible at the appellant's annual hearing scheduled for early April.

The defendants, David Livingston and Laura Miller, pleaded not guilty to charges of breach of trust by a public official, mischief to data, and unauthorized use of a computer.

The Crown withdrew the breach of trust count at the close of its case.

The defendants brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the remaining two counts.

The court found that while the Crown failed to establish that actual data was destroyed, there was sufficient evidence that the defendants attempted to commit mischief to data without legal justification or colour of right.

The motion was allowed in part on the mischief to data count, which was reduced to attempt to commit mischief to data.

The motion was dismissed on the unauthorized use of a computer count.

The appellant Ledore Investments Limited appealed from a Superior Court judgment that set aside a commercial arbitration award.

The underlying dispute arose from final subcontract accounting in a major bridge construction project, where the respondent Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. was the general contractor and the appellant was a subcontractor supplying steel.

The central issue concerned whether Ellis-Don had made a written claim for delay costs within the time required by Article 15.1(a) of the subcontract.

The arbitrator found that Ellis-Don had not made an actual claim in writing, distinguishing between an intention to claim and an actual claim.

The appeal judge reversed the arbitrator's award, finding the arbitrator had misapplied legal principles from Doyle Construction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of Article 15.1(a) was eminently reasonable and reinstated the arbitration award.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 13, 2016.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the Board failed to apply the Winko test in concluding the appellant remains a significant threat to public safety and failed to order an absolute discharge; (2) the Board erred in failing to order a conditional discharge; and (3) conditions should be amended to allow community living in Brockville rather than North Bay due to North Bay's inability to receive the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first two grounds but allowed the appeal on the third ground, permitting the appellant to live in approved community accommodation in Brockville.

The defendant was charged with five offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act: one count of wilfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstances within 10 days, and four counts of knowingly making false or misleading statements to the WSIB.

The charges arose from the defendant's failure to report various work activities and his responses on WSIB forms regarding his employment status and medical condition.

The court found that the WSIB failed to establish a clear communication strategy to ensure claimants understood what constituted a "material change" and that the defendant's understanding of "work" as paid employment was reasonable given the WSIB's own forms.

The court acquitted on all five counts, finding reasonable doubt as to the defendant's knowledge and intent.