Charles T. Hackland

The applicant, Air Passenger Rights, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of subsection 85.09(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, which imposes a blanket confidentiality requirement on the new Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) process for air passenger disputes.

The applicant argued this violated the open court principle and section 2(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the CRO process is an adjudicative tribunal to which the open court principle applies, and that the confidentiality provision infringes section 2(b).

The government failed to justify the infringement under section 1, as the blanket confidentiality was not minimally impairing or necessary for efficiency.

The court ordered the provision read down so that confidentiality only applies to optional mediation steps, not adjudicative records.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the respondents' action, which sought declarations that the government failed in its duty under the Genocide Convention to prevent a foreign state from committing an alleged genocide.

The respondents also alleged violations of their sections 7 and 15 Charter rights.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the claims were non-justiciable as they involved the exercise of Crown prerogative in foreign affairs and international relations.

The court also found no reasonable prospect of success for the Charter claims, noting a lack of causal connection for section 7 and that discretionary immigration policies do not ground a section 15 claim.

The applicant, a figure skating coach, sought leave to appeal an arbitration decision that found the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) applied retroactively to his historical conduct from 2005.

The arbitrator had determined that the UCCMS was designed to protect the sporting public rather than punish past behaviour, thus falling under the protection of the public exception to the presumption against retroactivity.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's application of the exception or his interpretation of the contractual consent signed by the applicant.

This was a costs endorsement following the plaintiff's complete success in resisting a motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court held the respondent plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the action had been trial ready since 2019 and subsequent delay was not attributable to the plaintiff.

After reviewing the parties' bills of costs, hourly rates, and time dockets, and treating the matter as one of average complexity requiring considerable care and organization, the court fixed costs at $18,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court also remarked that the motion's costs could have been avoided had the matter proceeded to trial.

The accused was tried on two counts of sexual assault involving two different complainants.

On the first count, the complainant had no memory of the events due to a blackout, and the court found reasonable doubt regarding her capacity to consent and the circumstances of the encounter, resulting in an acquittal.

On the second count, the complainant explicitly objected to unprotected intercourse, but the accused proceeded anyway.

The court found the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent after the complainant raised concerns, resulting in a conviction on the second count.

The moving party, Greenmark Builders Inc., was successful on a motion to stay a Small Claims Court action commenced by a sub-contractor, Harding Mechanical Contractors, pending the outcome of a related construction lien action in the Superior Court.

The court awarded Greenmark costs of the motion, fixing them at $5,000 payable by Harding forthwith, and an additional $5,000 payable by the homeowners as costs in the cause, noting that the homeowners and Greenmark had unreasonably frustrated the resolution of Harding's claim.

The self-represented applicant sought procedural orders, including the issuance of subpoenas against four police officers and the production of internal investigation records, in advance of his mandamus application.

The mandamus application sought to overturn a Justice of the Peace's refusal to allow a private prosecution against two officers for alleged misconduct during an arrest.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the procedural requests, finding that the application was a collateral attack on a previous ruling, that fresh evidence is generally inadmissible on judicial review, and that compelling the officers to testify would violate their Charter rights against self-incrimination.

The defendant municipality brought a motion under Rule 24.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The action, concerning a municipal sewer construction project, had been set down for trial in 2019 following a consent timetable order.

Subsequent delays were due to institutional factors and a consented adjournment, not the plaintiff's conduct.

Applying the principle that only delay subsequent to a consent order requires explanation, the court found the plaintiff had complied with the timetable and dismissed the motion, ordering the matter to be placed on the trial list.

The plaintiff sued the Crown (Ontario) for false arrest and negligent investigation arising from her arrest by OPP Constable Morrison on December 2, 2017, following 911 calls from her husband reporting she had a knife and was threatening self-harm.

The plaintiff was charged with assault, assessed at a hospital, and released on a Promise to Appear.

Twenty days later, she entered into a Common Law Peace Bond with Crown consent, and the assault charge was withdrawn.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff based on the husband's account that she had punched him approximately 10 times.

The court also held that the Peace Bond disposition precluded the tort claims, as entering into a Peace Bond does not constitute a termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness' decision to refuse an Interim Measures Request (IMR) from the United Nations Human Rights Committee and proceed with the applicant's removal to Somalia.

The applicant, a permanent resident with serious mental health issues and criminal convictions, had been found inadmissible to Canada and subject to a deportation order.

The court addressed justiciability and jurisdiction, finding concurrent jurisdiction between the Ontario Superior Court and Federal Court over Crown prerogative matters.

The court found the Minister's decision reasonable and not requiring reasons, as it involved an exercise of Crown prerogative regarding international treaty obligations that are not binding on Canada domestically.

The applicant sought appointment as succeeding estate trustee of her late father's estate.

The applicant had previously challenged the validity of her father's will and codicil in a separate proceeding, which was settled in March 2023 with the applicant receiving the entire residue of the estate.

The applicant now sought to be appointed estate trustee to pursue a negligence claim against the lawyer who drafted the will to recover her personal legal fees incurred in the prior proceeding.

The court denied the application, finding that appointing the applicant would create a conflict of interest, that reopening the settled prior proceeding would constitute an abuse of process, and that a serious limitations issue existed under the Trustee Act.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment on a promissory note in the amount of $1,650,000 provided by the defendants as vendor takeback financing for the purchase of the plaintiff's company pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The defendants are pursuing a separate Ontario action claiming rescission of the share purchase agreement and damages for alleged misrepresentations and non-disclosures.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding it inappropriate to grant judgment on the promissory note while the entire underlying transaction remains in dispute in the related proceeding.

The court ordered that the promissory note claim may be tried together with or consolidated with the defendants' counterclaim, or asserted as a cross-claim in the related action.

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful recovery of a loan in the principal amount of approximately $14 million plus accrued interest.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $125,890 based on a provision in the loan agreement, while the respondents argued for partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The court found that the loan agreement provision was sufficiently clear to encompass enforcement costs and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $108,000 inclusive of fees, HST and disbursements.

This is a costs decision following the successful application by the applicants to set aside an arbitral award and associated costs award on grounds of procedural unfairness.

The applicants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $49,636.38 against Dr. Frank Fowlie.

The court awarded the full amount requested, finding the applicants were entirely successful and the quantum was fair and reasonable.

The court rejected Dr. Fowlie's argument that he should not bear costs as he was not responsible for the arbitrator's conduct, noting that he actively opposed the application and did not challenge the procedural ruling during the arbitration.

The court also rejected any suggestion that Wrestling Canada Lutte should share in the costs award.

A personal injury claim arising from a slip and fall on January 3, 2019 on the premises of St. Lawrence College of Applied Arts and Technology in Cornwall, Ontario.

The plaintiff suffered a significant fracture injury when he slipped on a sidewalk leading to a medical office building.

Damages were agreed; the trial concerned liability only.

The defendants were the College and its winter snow and ice removal contractor.

The court found that the defendants breached their duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act by using pure salt on sidewalks in extremely cold temperatures (-10°C or colder) when salt is chemically ineffective, and by failing to use sand or ice melt as required by contract or recommended by best practices.

The court found the defendants liable and found no contributory negligence on the plaintiff's part.

The respondent mother sought an interim restraining order under the Family Law Act and Children’s Law Reform Act to prevent the applicant father from contacting her and their three children.

The court found no evidentiary basis for such an order, noting that the father’s conduct—attending the children’s activities and attempting contact—did not amount to harassment or endangerment.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents’ involvement in the children’s lives and encouraged communication and counseling, ultimately dismissing the motion for a restraining order.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitration award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator’s mid-hearing switch from an oral to a written process, and refusal to consider their closing submissions, constituted unequal and unfair treatment.

The Court found that the applicants were denied their statutory rights to an oral hearing and to equal treatment, and set aside the award, remitting the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitration panel.

The applicant, a former president and Life member of the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), challenged the revocation of his Life membership, claiming it breached the CIU By-laws and seeking reinstatement.

The Court found that Life membership was an honorary status, not contractual, and that its revocation was not justiciable.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the relationship did not create enforceable legal rights.

The court granted judgment in favour of V2 Investment Holdings Inc. for a $12.9 million loan made to Sam Mizrahi and related corporate respondents, finding the debt liquidated and undisputed.

The respondents' arguments of bad faith and equitable set-off, based on alleged promises regarding mortgage registration and intercreditor agreements, were rejected as unsupported by the evidence.

The court found no binding agreement to amend the loan or enter a standstill, and no breach of the duty of honest performance.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding amount plus interest, with directions for further submissions on costs and interest calculations.

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) sought a court order validating its by-laws and articles, which had been amended over a decade without compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA) due to erroneous legal advice.

The court found that the CFPC had failed to hold required separate class votes for membership changes, rendering its constating documents improperly enacted.

The Resident Doctors of Canada, while generally supporting the application, sought restoration of voting rights for family medicine residents.

The court held that section 288(4) of the CNCA provided broad remedial powers to validate the documents and to reclassify family medicine residents as voting members.

The application was granted, validating the CFPC’s by-laws and articles nunc pro tunc and restoring voting rights to family medicine residents.