Brian Harvey

The appellant, a federal government employee, successfully appealed her income tax reassessment and subsequently sued the federal government for abuse of power and misfeasance in public office.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred because the appellant knew the material facts underlying her tort claims years earlier.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant was entitled to seek a determination that her tax reassessment was invalid before commencing her tort action, as proving the reassessment's invalidity was a necessary element of her misfeasance claim.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of $23,895.43.

The plaintiff argued for reduced costs because the defendants brought two separate summary judgment motions when one would have sufficed.

The court agreed that the duplication of proceedings warranted a reduction and fixed the defendants' costs at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application.

The application judge had declined jurisdiction in favour of a judicial review application before the Federal Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in May v. Ferndale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was bound by its recent decision in R. v. Graham, which established that the parole review process under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act constitutes a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for review, thus falling within the exception to the Superior Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of power, negligence, and Charter breaches arising from an income tax reassessment.

The plaintiff conceded the malicious prosecution claim.

For the remaining claims, the court held that the limitation period commenced when the plaintiff discovered the material facts underlying her claims, which occurred by 1998 or at the latest 2001 when she included them in her Notice of Tax Appeal.

The court rejected the argument that the cause of action only accrued after her tax appeal was successfully resolved in 2005.

As the action was commenced in 2007, it was statute-barred and dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to grant a writ of habeas corpus regarding his transfer from a minimum to a medium security institution.

The appellant argued the transfer relied on confidential information that was not properly assessed for reliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the transfer decision was procedurally fair, based on reliable evidence from a security information officer, and not unreasonable.

The Association of Major League Umpires filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the American and National Leagues and the Toronto Blue Jays, challenging a lock-out and the use of replacement umpires at games in Toronto.

The Leagues argued that their collective bargaining relationship was governed by American law and that Ontario law did not apply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applies to the umpires when they work in Toronto.

The Board declared that the lock-out and the use of replacement umpires in Ontario were unlawful because the parties had not completed the compulsory conciliation process required by the Act.