Baaba Forson

The Attorney General sought a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act in respect of life insurance proceeds payable following the killing of the insured by the beneficiary, who had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the homicide.

The respondent opposed the order and sought payment of legal fees from the preserved funds and a declaration recognizing counsel’s solicitor’s lien based on a contingency fee agreement.

The court held that a verdict of not criminally responsible constitutes proof that the offence was committed for purposes of the Act, and that the insurance proceeds were sufficiently connected to unlawful activity to justify preservation.

Delay by the Crown in bringing the application did not meet the narrow “clearly not in the interests of justice” exception.

The preservation order was granted, while requests for payment of legal expenses and recognition of a solicitor’s lien were denied or deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by court staff during family law litigation.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents from the application.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the overarching claim was based on a pattern of alleged discrimination by the institutional respondent, which had the ability to remedy any violations.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondents to prevent the hearing process from becoming unnecessarily complicated.

The appellants, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, appealed a decision regarding the enforcement of sponsorship debts against eight sponsors whose relatives received social assistance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the government has a duty to collect the full sponsorship debt, it retains a limited discretion to defer enforcement based on a sponsor's circumstances.

In exercising this discretion, the government owes a minimal duty of procedural fairness to notify the sponsor, allow them to explain their circumstances, consider those circumstances, and notify them of the decision.

The Court found that Ontario's debt collection policy did not improperly fetter its discretion and met the requirements of procedural fairness.

The appellant commenced two actions in the Superior Court of Justice regarding a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal requiring her to repay $1,314 in benefits received under the Ontario Works Act.

The motion judge struck out the statements of claim on the basis that the Superior Court has no jurisdiction by way of action over decisions of the Tribunal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the proper procedure is to appeal the decision on a question of law to the Divisional Court or seek judicial review.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), one of its Vice-chairs, and the Ministry of the Attorney General, alleging discrimination and reprisal in the handling of her ongoing human rights complaint against a school board.

The applicant alleged the Vice-chair showed bias during mediation and the HRTO improperly denied interim relief.

The HRTO determined it had jurisdiction to assess whether the application was properly before it without creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and a collateral attack on an ongoing proceeding.

The adjudicator also noted that the allegations related to adjudicative functions, which are protected by adjudicative immunity and do not constitute 'services' under the Code.

The Attorney General appealed orders setting rates of compensation for amicus curiae appointed in three criminal proceedings.

The Crown argued that courts have no jurisdiction to fix the rate of compensation for amicus curiae, as only Parliament can allocate public funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that both superior and statutory courts have the jurisdiction to fix the rate of compensation for amicus curiae as a necessary incident of their jurisdiction to appoint amicus.

The court found that such orders do not infringe constitutional principles and are authorized by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act and the Financial Administration Act.

The trial judges did not err in setting rates that exceeded legal aid rates, as amicus serves the court and the administration of justice, and the rates were based on appropriate factors.

The applicant alleged that court staff discriminated against him on the basis of race and sex during family law litigation, and engaged in reprisals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and the prohibited grounds.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the applicant was directed to file an amended application to include additional factual particulars.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order striking her two Superior Court proceedings, which claimed damages of $8.2 million and $100,000.

The Divisional Court found that an appeal of a final order in these amounts falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the appeals were transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the administration and calculation of her entitlements under the Ontario Works Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appeals under the Act are restricted to questions of law.

Because the appellant raised only administrative and factual complaints, the court found no error of law.