Chantelle Anna Blom

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.

The defendant Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action alleged that the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) was negligent and breached a fiduciary duty by reinstating a defaulting payor's passport, allowing him to leave the country and evade support arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that whether FRO owed a duty of care or a fiduciary duty to the support recipients were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (representing the Family Responsibility Office), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff alleged that the FRO negligently authorized the return of her ex-husband's suspended passport, allowing him to flee the country and evade over $200,000 in support arrears.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the FRO owed a prima facie duty of care to the support recipient and that genuine issues regarding the standard of care and damages required a trial.

The Chief Coroner for Ontario brought a motion to set aside an order requiring him to file a record of proceedings for a judicial review application concerning his refusal to order an inquest into a death.

The Divisional Court held that the Chief Coroner was not exercising a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act when deciding whether to hold an inquest, as he was determining the public interest rather than legal rights or eligibility for benefits.

Consequently, the Chief Coroner was not required to file a record of proceedings, and the motion was granted.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent Chief Coroner to file a record of proceedings in a pending application for judicial review.

The underlying application sought to review the Chief Coroner's decision not to order an inquest into the death of the applicant's child.

The respondent argued that the decision was not the exercise of a statutory power of decision and generated no record of proceedings.

The court granted the motion, holding that as long as there is a pending application for judicial review, a record of proceedings must be filed, leaving the determination of reviewability to the reviewing panel.