3 total
The court granted an interlocutory injunction exempting existing supervised consumption sites from closure under new provincial legislation pending a Charter challenge.
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.
Costs of $10,000 awarded to unsuccessful applicant due to Minister's unreasonable delay in passport refusal.
Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review of a passport refusal as moot, the applicant sought costs.
The Court awarded costs to the applicant in the fixed amount of $10,000.00 despite the respondent being the technically successful party.
The award reflected the public interest in resolving the legal issues and the Court's disapproval of the unreasonable delay by the Minister in deciding the underlying passport application, which caused the matter to become moot before it could be determined on its merits.
Advance ruling granted to strike an expert affidavit containing fresh evidence on judicial review.
In an application for judicial review of a decision denying a passport renewal on national security grounds, the respondent moved for an advance ruling to strike an expert affidavit filed by the applicant.
The expert provided evidence on the concept of martyrdom in Islam, profiles of radicalized individuals, and assessing the risk of returnees from terrorist-controlled areas.
The Federal Court granted the motion and struck the affidavit.
The Court held that judicial review is restricted to the evidentiary record before the original decision-maker, and the expert affidavit did not fall within the recognized exceptions for procedural fairness or general background information.
