Brandon Joseph Fragomeni

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed her discrimination complaint against the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and its adjudicators.

The HRTO had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review LTB decisions or the conduct of its adjudicators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the applicant had already unsuccessfully challenged the same LTB decisions through a combined appeal and judicial review.

The applicants jointly sought interim orders under s. 182(5) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) in connection with a proposed plan of arrangement involving a quantum computing company (an OBCA corporation) and a special purpose acquisition company currently incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands.

A threshold issue arose as to whether a non-OBCA entity could avail itself of s. 182 of the OBCA.

The court found that the arrangement provision is to be interpreted broadly and flexibly, and that the timing of the SPAC's continuance to the OBCA was an immaterial quirk given that it would be an OBCA corporation before the final order was sought.

The court was satisfied that reasonable grounds existed to regard the proposed transaction as an arrangement and granted the interim orders authorizing the calling and holding of shareholder meetings.

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

The court dismissed an application brought by a self-represented applicant against the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant sought a non-punitive tort award of $150,000,000, alleging he was placed in a false light, suffered privacy invasion, faced wrongful criminal charges, and was imprisoned.

The court found the application lacked legal basis and legal merit.

While the applicant had been charged with criminal offences including theft of a motor vehicle and possession of stolen property, the charges were withdrawn following his successful completion of a mental health program.

The court determined the application did not allege the essential elements of malicious prosecution and could not identify any other legal basis for the proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to continue an action against the Crown under section 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The plaintiff alleged that the Crown intentionally fabricated a document falsely identifying him as a criminal and distributed it to police services throughout Ontario, resulting in significant personal, professional, and emotional harm.

The Crown argued the claim was subject to an automatic stay under section 17(1) of the CLPA as it was based on bad faith conduct.

The court found the automatic stay applied and dismissed the motion for leave, finding the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold of demonstrating a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

The court noted insufficient credible evidence supporting the existence of the alleged criminal document and numerous unsubstantiated allegations in the plaintiff's materials.

The applicant, M.D., sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to lay criminal charges against two police officers following an incident in which M.D. alleged sexual assault during a search at a hospital.

The court considered whether the SIU Director had a duty to lay charges, whether an alternative remedy was available, and whether the merits of the Director’s decision justified mandamus.

The court found no duty owed to the applicant to form reasonable and probable grounds, held that the private prosecution process under section 504 of the Criminal Code was an adequate alternative remedy, and found no evidence of bias or improper motive in the Director’s decision.

The application for mandamus was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for forfeiture of $32,000 in Canadian currency seized from Nosakhare Ohenhen.

The court found that the funds were proceeds of and an instrument of unlawful activity, rejecting Ohenhen’s explanations regarding the source of the funds.

The court also addressed procedural issues, including the admissibility of evidence and the use of fictitious case citations by the respondent.

The application for forfeiture was granted.

The defendant Royal Bank of Canada filed a requisition under rule 2.1.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the action.

The court determined under rule 2.1.01(6) that it may be appropriate to make an order dismissing or staying the action, and directed the registrar to give notice to the parties in Form 2.1B.

The endorsement outlines the procedures and timelines for written submissions by the parties in response to the notice, as set out in rules 2.1.01(7) through (10).

The court considered an application by police officers Justin Lafleur and Rodney Degray to quash subpoenas issued by M.D. in the context of a mandamus application seeking to compel the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to lay charges.

The court found that M.D. had not established that the officers were likely to have relevant, material, and admissible evidence for the judicial review.

The application to quash the subpoenas was granted, as the evidence sought did not fall within the recognized exceptions for admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency to suspend its investigation into his complaints of police misconduct pending the outcome of his related civil action.

At a case conference, the court ordered the judicial review application to be held in abeyance pending the outcome of a freedom of information proceeding and a civil case conference.

The court also ordered the applicant to amend his Notice of Application to limit the relief sought strictly to the review of the Agency's decision.

The court expressed significant concern regarding the procedural complexities and access to justice barriers faced by the self-represented applicant.

The appellant, Ontario, appealed a case management judge's order that directed multiple motions, including motions to strike, to proceed concurrently with the respondents' motion for leave to pursue a bad faith claim against the Crown.

Ontario argued that section 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 imposes an automatic stay on the entire proceeding until leave is granted.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the statutory stay applies to all claims in the proceeding, not just those against the Crown, and that the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot override this statutory mandate.

The appeal was granted, and all motions other than the leave motion were stayed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

Following the dismissal of a proposed intervener's motion to intervene, the successful party and another intervener sought costs.

The court awarded the successful party elevated costs fixed at $460,000, apportioning liability among the proposed intervener (65%) and the two defendants (17.5% each) due to the defendants' delayed positions which complicated the motion.

The second intervener was awarded $12,500 in costs against the proposed intervener, limited to costs incurred after it first requested them in its factum.

This endorsement addresses three motions to intervene in a complex, long-standing action by the Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians (SNGR) against the Crown for breaches of duty and treaty obligations related to the Haldimand Proclamation.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) sought to intervene as a party, arguing it represented the true rights-holder and aimed to derail the litigation in favor of nation-to-nation negotiations.

The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) sought to intervene as a party due to concerns about SNGR's expert evidence impacting MCFN's history and treaty rights.

Men's Fire of the Six Nations Grand River Territory sought to intervene in HDI's motion to oppose it.

The court granted Men's Fire leave to intervene in HDI's motion, denied HDI's motion to intervene in the main action (finding its interest not genuine, an abuse of process, and causing undue delay), and granted MCFN's motion to intervene in the main action with specific terms to manage its participation.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for the preservation of $32,000 in Canadian currency, seized from Mr. Ohenhen's residence, pending a civil forfeiture application.

The motion was brought under sections 4(1) and 9(1) of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was proceeds of unlawful activity, citing Mr. Ohenhen's criminal record, pending charges, and the large, bundled cash amount.

The court also determined that preservation was in the interests of justice, as the 'clearly not in the interests of justice' exception did not apply, and the money would likely be dissipated otherwise.

The applicants initiated a proceeding by application seeking declarations and substantial damages related to an anaerobic digester, and subsequently moved to add a party and for injunctive relief to prevent the digester's reactivation.

The court found the application procedurally inappropriate and outside its jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly due to the presence of material facts in dispute and the complex nature of the claims (nuisance and negligence).

Consequently, the court converted the application into an action, directing the applicants to file a Statement of Claim, and denied the immediate injunctive relief on the basis that it was not available in an improperly commenced application.

The Attorney General brought a motion for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for $66,760 in Canadian currency seized by police during a search of a residence.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activity, noting the presence of bundled cash and firearms.

As no evidence was presented to show the order would not be in the interests of justice, the preservation motion was granted pending the disposition of the forfeiture application.