Chantelle Anna Blom

The Court of Appeal heard motions for leave to intervene from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) in a class action appeal concerning the Basic Income Pilot Project.

The CCLA's unopposed motion was granted, allowing it to file a factum and present oral arguments under specific terms.

The ISAC's motion was dismissed without costs because its direct involvement in shaping the factual matrix of the Basic Income Pilot Project, including consultations and advice to participants, made it too closely associated with the potential class members and the underlying factual issues, thus compromising its role as an intervener.

The applicant, Sunrise North Senior Living Ltd., brought an urgent application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of York to evict a respondent, Rohan Salmon, pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders.

The urgency was predicated on the Sheriff's position that the eviction order would expire on June 1, 2019, a point disputed by Sunrise.

The court, without deciding the expiry issue, renewed the eviction orders for one year to eliminate urgency and transferred the judicial review application to the Divisional Court for a full hearing.

The Attorney General appealed a Superior Court decision that appointed two amici to assist on an appeal challenging the trial judge's appointment of amici in a complex family law custody and access case.

The appeal judge imposed a stay of proceedings conditional on the Attorney General negotiating a mutually acceptable rate of compensation with the appointed amici.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal, finding that Criminal Lawyers' Association does not impose an obligation on the Attorney General to negotiate rates with court-appointed amici, and that a stay is only appropriate where amicus assistance is truly essential and no other qualified counsel can be found.

The court set aside the stay and remitted the matter for the appointment of one amicus from counsel willing to accept legal aid rates.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) sought an order to enforce an agreement between counsel to delay examinations under Rule 39.03 pending a motion to quash summonses, or alternatively, to stay the summonses.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test for a stay, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the quashing of summonses and the standing of HMQ/OLG to quash summonses for unrepresented witnesses.

The court determined that proceeding with examinations would cause irreparable harm to HMQ's legal interests by rendering the motion to quash moot.

The balance of convenience favoured HMQ, and the motion to stay the summonses was granted.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's class action, the court addressed costs.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling $779,405.70.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a significant reduction, citing novel points of law and public interest under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court found that the complex legal issues initially raised were not ultimately pursued, rendering s. 31 inapplicable.

However, the court disallowed HMQ's costs for an unsuccessful summary judgment motion, granting the plaintiff a credit of $216,550.

Ultimately, HMQ was awarded costs fixed at $470,810 for fees and $92,045.70 for disbursements, for a total of $562,855.70.

This is the first known case in Canada wherein a trial judge in a family law proceeding appointed amicus curiae to represent both litigant parents and to assist the court on issues impacting the best interests of children.

The Attorney General brought a motion to set aside the amicus orders, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and misapprehended the law of amicus curiae.

The trial judge appointed amicus for the mother due to her emotional instability, pattern of dismissing counsel, and inability to self-represent in a complex, high-conflict family law matter.

The trial judge subsequently appointed amicus for the father when his counsel sought to withdraw due to unpaid accounts and inability to continue.

The court dismissed the Attorney General's motion, finding the trial judge had jurisdiction to make the orders in the exceptional and unusual circumstances of the case.

The defendants moved for a stay of an action concerning approximately $35 million in reserve funds retained from Casino Rama revenues.

The plaintiff alleged that maintaining the reserves breached limits imposed under a later revenue-sharing agreement, while the defendants argued the dispute arose under an earlier agreement that required arbitration.

The court considered the competence-competence principle and jurisprudence directing courts to defer to arbitration where it is arguable that a dispute falls within an arbitration clause.

Because the dispute arguably arose under the earlier contract incorporating arbitration provisions, the court held that the matter should proceed to arbitration.

The action was therefore stayed pending determination by an arbitrator of whether the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement.

The applicant brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings pending the provision of state-funded counsel.

The applicant was charged with seven counts of fraud, six counts of possession of property obtained by crime, four counts each of forgery, personation with intent, drawing documents without authority, uttering documents without authority, and theft, and two counts of obtaining credit by fraud.

The court addressed three issues: the applicable standard of proof, whether the applicant established indigency, and whether counsel was essential for a fair trial.

The court held that the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities, not a high degree of probability, and found that the applicant established indigency.

However, the court found that the applicant failed to establish that counsel was essential to ensure a fair trial, given her educational background, business expertise, and the trial judge's ability to provide assistance.

The application was dismissed.