Byron Taylor-Conboy

The appellant, a lawyer, sought declarations and mandamus to compel the production of aggregated civil trial data from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) for research purposes, after his initial requests were denied by MAG and the Chief Justice of the Superior Court.

The application judge denied the requests, finding that declaratory relief would serve no practical purpose and that the open court principle did not extend to requiring the aggregation of bulk data.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision to deny the declarations on the basis that they would serve no practical purpose.

The court emphasized that control over judicial information rests with the judiciary, not MAG, rendering declarations against MAG ineffective.

The Attorney General of Canada was initially named as a respondent but the application against it was abandoned.

The applicant, charged with aggravated assault, sought a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel, arguing his right to a fair trial would be compromised without representation.

His legal aid certificate was cancelled after he received an inheritance, which he subsequently spent.

The court found that legal representation was essential given the complexity of the case and the serious charge.

However, the application was deemed premature because the applicant failed to exhaust all legal aid appeals and did not provide sufficient evidence of indigence regarding family loans.

The application was adjourned to allow the applicant to complete the legal aid appeal process and provide further financial evidence.

The appellant, Black & McDonald Limited, appealed two orders staying their proceedings in Ontario in favour of British Columbia as the more convenient forum.

The first action was against Eiffage Innovative Canada Inc. and individuals for breach of contract and breach of trust related to a construction subcontract.

The second was against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company under a payment bond.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in interpreting an "exclusive jurisdiction" clause in the prime contract as applicable to the subcontract, and that the forum non conveniens factors did not clearly favour British Columbia, thus the high standard to displace the plaintiff's chosen jurisdiction was not met for the Eiffage action.

For the Liberty Mutual action, the Court found the forum selection clause in the payment bond ambiguous and resolved it against Liberty Mutual, also noting the public policy against multiple proceedings risking inconsistent findings.

The appeals were allowed, and the actions were permitted to proceed in Ontario.