Charlotte-Anne Malischewski

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association challenged the constitutionality of sections 31-37 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which authorize administrative segregation (solitary confinement) in federal penitentiaries.

The applicant sought declarations that these provisions violate sections 7, 11(h), and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal found that prolonged administrative segregation (more than 15 consecutive days) violates section 12 of the Charter as cruel and unusual treatment and cannot be justified under section 1.

The court rejected arguments regarding inmates aged 18-21 and those with mental illness due to insufficient evidence, and dismissed the section 11(h) claim.

The court declared sections 31-37 of no force and effect to the extent they authorize prolonged administrative segregation.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant cardiac surgeon for failing to obtain informed consent after the plaintiff suffered permanent vision loss following life-saving heart valve surgery.

The defendant moved for summary judgment.

The court held that the presence of a jury notice does not alter the test for summary judgment.

Applying the modified objective test for causation, the court found that even if the remote risk of blindness was a material risk that should have been disclosed, no reasonable person in the plaintiff's position—facing an 80% chance of death within three years without the surgery—would have declined the procedure.

The plaintiff also admitted in cross-examination that he would have consented if presented with the relative risks.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by the Attorney General of Canada to extend the suspension of a declaration of constitutional invalidity regarding sections 31-37 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The lower court had found that the "fifth working day review" for administrative segregation violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to the lack of meaningful independent review.

The respondent sought an extension to allow Parliament to enact Bill C-83, which would replace administrative segregation with "structured intervention units." The court granted the extension to April 30, 2019, finding that immediate effect would pose unacceptable danger to correctional personnel and inmates, despite expressing concern about Canada's delay in addressing the constitutional infirmity and the absence of interim measures or adequate explanation of how the proposed legislation would remedy the breach.

The Applicant, Faith Bazos, sought to avoid paying costs to the Respondent, Bell Media Inc., after her application challenging Bell Media's refusal to run her political advertisements was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Bazos argued she was a public interest litigant and should be exempt from costs or pay reduced costs.

The court found that the jurisdictional issue was not novel and did not qualify her as a public interest litigant for the purpose of costs.

The court also found that it was not necessary for her to invoke the Superior Court's jurisdiction instead of the CRTC.

Consequently, the Respondent, as the successful party on the jurisdictional issue, was entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $43,117.90, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, finding the amount reasonable given the urgency and complexity of the jurisdictional hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions by the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which refused to refer his complaints against three school administrators to discipline.

The court ruled the applicant only had standing to raise issues of procedural fairness.

The applicant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the Committee was improperly constituted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no factual basis for bias, and that the Committee was properly constituted.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a teacher, sought judicial review of a decision by the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers to issue him a written caution.

The caution related to his communications with a school principal regarding his son's suspension.

The applicant argued he was acting as a parent, not a teacher, and alleged procedural unfairness and unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the Committee's decision to issue a caution fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicant, a municipal election candidate, sought a declaration and mandatory order from the Superior Court of Justice to compel the respondent broadcaster to run her political advertisements, relying on CRTC regulations and the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the CRTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of its regulations.

While the court had concurrent jurisdiction for Charter claims, it declined to exercise it, determining that the entire application should be heard by the specialized tribunal.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member admitted to failing to maintain professional boundaries by inviting adolescent boarding students to his room, taking them on unauthorized late-night and overnight trips, and lying to school administration about the trips.

The member also continued to communicate with a student after his employment was terminated and he was instructed to cease contact.

The Discipline Committee accepted the member's guilty plea and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension of his certificate of qualification and registration, and the successful completion of a course on boundary violations and professional ethics.

The appellant, a former Director of Education, appealed a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for plagiarism and revoking his certificate.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused his request for a medical adjournment and proceeded in his absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee failed to consider the totality of the medical evidence regarding the appellant's major depressive disorder and unfairly relied on undisclosed internet search results about his employment.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought professional misconduct allegations against a teacher for her conduct over three school years at three different schools.

The College alleged that the teacher shouted at students, intimidated them, made them cry, and failed to immediately report the absence of a student who ran away from school during a blizzard.

The Discipline Committee heard evidence from several students and school principals, who were qualified as participant experts in classroom management.

The Committee found that the teacher's conduct constituted verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse, and that she failed to maintain the standards of the profession.

The allegations of physical abuse were not proven.

The teacher was found guilty of professional misconduct, with the penalty to be determined at a later date.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a retired teacher for numerous incidents of professional misconduct over three school years.

The Member was alleged to have made inappropriate, racist, and sexual comments to students, used physical force, and verbally and psychologically abused students.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, noting his conduct was serious, repeated, and had a profound negative impact on students.

The Committee revoked the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, finding him intractable and incorrigible.

The applicant, a civil liberties organization, brought a public interest challenge against the administrative segregation provisions (sections 31-37) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, arguing they violated sections 7, 11(h), and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant had standing to seek a declaration of invalidity under section 52(1) but not a personal remedy under section 24(1).

The court held that the legislative scheme violated section 7 of the Charter because it failed to provide an independent review of the institutional head's decision to maintain an inmate in administrative segregation, which breached the principles of fundamental justice (procedural fairness) and was not saved by section 1.

The court dismissed the claims under section 11(h) and section 12, finding that segregation is not a punishment and that the scheme, if properly applied with consideration for inmates' mental health, does not constitute cruel and unusual treatment.

The court declared the provisions unconstitutional to the extent they authorize segregation beyond five working days without independent review, but suspended the declaration for 12 months.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The member did not attend the hearing despite being properly served with the Notice of Hearing and disclosure documents.

Proceeding in the member's absence, the Discipline Committee found that the facts supported a finding of professional misconduct under various subsections of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

The Committee reserved its decision on penalty, with written reasons to follow.

The successful defendants in a proposed class action sought costs of $1,000,455.22 on a partial indemnity basis following a dispositive jurisdiction motion.

The unsuccessful plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded because the case raised novel and important issues regarding the jurisdictional reach of Ontario courts over foreign defendants in securities matters, or alternatively, that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding that the litigation was entrepreneurial rather than altruistic, and that the issues were not novel in a way that justified departing from the normal loser-pays rule.

The court concluded that the defendants' costs, including substantial expert witness fees, were fair, reasonable, and within the reasonable expectations of the plaintiff given the $8 billion value of the claim.

The defendants were awarded their costs as requested.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for a pattern of inappropriate, unprofessional, and abusive behaviour towards multiple students over two academic years.

The Member verbally and psychologically abused students, making them feel singled out, ridiculed, and embarrassed, and failed to provide accommodation to a student with an Individual Education Plan.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand and imposed terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member's certificate requiring her to complete an Additional Qualification course focused on professional practice and student well-being.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate personal electronic communications and boundary violations with a student over a six-month period.

The Children's Aid Society concluded the conduct constituted grooming behaviour.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the Member's teaching certificate, and the successful completion of a course on boundary violations.

The plaintiff brought a proposed global class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 against a foreign holding company and its former employee, alleging misrepresentations in the secondary market regarding anti-money laundering compliance and Libor/Euribor manipulation.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter or on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a declaration that the corporate defendant was a 'responsible issuer' under the Securities Act.

The court found that the corporate defendant did not carry on business in Ontario and rebutted any presumptive connecting factors, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

Furthermore, the court held that even if jurisdiction existed, Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The statutory claims were dismissed and the common law claims were stayed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion, on consent, for an order to dispose of the motion in writing and to adjourn the scheduled discipline hearing sine die due to the member's medical condition.

The member provided a Declaration of Undertaking and Acknowledgement agreeing not to teach or hold any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration until the complaint is disposed of.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the member's medical condition precluded her attendance, the request was timely, and the public interest was protected by the member's undertaking and the notation on the public register.

The parties were ordered to provide an update within one year.

The Crown sought an adjournment of a constitutional challenge brought by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) against administrative segregation provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Crown argued for deference to Parliament due to pending legislative amendments (Bill C-56) and a new administrative policy.

The CCLA opposed the adjournment.

The court refused the adjournment, finding that the CCLA's constitutional challenge addressed aspects of the existing Act that would remain unaltered by the proposed amendments, thus rendering the adjournment unnecessary and not a matter of disrespect to the legislative process.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after an incident where he raised his fist and made a punching motion towards a student who would not follow instructions.

The Member had a history of using physical force to address student misbehaviour, having previously received a letter of expectation and a 15-day suspension for similar conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and requiring the Member to complete a pre-approved course on anger management and effective student discipline before returning to teaching.