Basil Alexander

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Energy Board's Demand Side Management guidelines, arguing they were improperly adopted without a hearing and were binding on parties.

The Board, supported by intervenors, brought a motion to quash the application as moot.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the guidelines were not binding, as evidenced by subsequent rate hearings where the Board departed from them and an affidavit from Board counsel.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, noting the applicant could challenge the guidelines in future rate proceedings.

The appellants, a non-profit housing co-operative and a co-operative housing federation, appealed an order approving a receivership sale of the co-operative's assets to a municipality-controlled entity.

The appellants argued that the motion judge failed to properly consider the special nature of co-operative housing and the rights of its members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard Soundair principles for approving a receiver's sale apply, and that the motion judge correctly balanced the special factors of social housing against the financial realities and statutory framework.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Region's decision to consent to the sale of a non-profit housing co-operative to the Region's social housing arm.

The Co-op was in receivership due to financial difficulties and need for capital repairs.

The Region consented to the sale without notifying the Co-op's board or members.

The Divisional Court held that the Region's decision was judicially reviewable and that the Region breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

However, given the urgent need for repairs, the court declined to quash the consent and deferred the matter to the Commercial List where the sale motion was pending.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted the plaintiff standing to participate in the action.

The motion judge had found the plaintiff had a direct interest, public interest standing, and could be added via a representative order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and that neither branch of the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) was met.