Christine Muir

The City of Brampton sought costs after successfully moving to strike portions of the applicants' claim regarding the Tamil Genocide Monument.

The applicants argued that no costs should be awarded because they were public interest litigants and of limited financial means.

The court found that while the underlying constitutional challenge was public interest litigation, the struck claims under the Building Code and Planning Act were meritless fishing expeditions.

The court rejected the impecuniosity argument due to a lack of evidentiary foundation.

The applicants were ordered to pay $10,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicants sought judicial review and appealed decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC).

The IPC had found that ransomware attacks encrypting the applicants' data containers constituted an unauthorized 'use' and 'loss' of personal information, triggering statutory duties to notify affected individuals under PHIPA and the CYFSA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications and appeal, holding that the IPC's interpretation was reasonable and purposive.

The court found that the encryption of data, which made it temporarily unavailable, amounted to 'handling' or 'dealing with' the information, thereby constituting an unauthorized use that required notification regardless of whether the data was actually viewed or exfiltrated.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Sandra Di Nardo to stay the enforcement of a judgment and related contempt orders pending her appeal in a contentious estate matter.

The court clarified the scope of its jurisdiction to grant a stay, distinguishing between orders that are and are not under appeal, and ultimately granted a temporary stay of the contempt order and warrant of committal pending a motion in the Superior Court.

The court found that the criteria for a stay were met, as the appeal could be rendered moot without interim relief.

The Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review and an appeal concerning decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The underlying proceedings involve whether cyberattacks that encrypt servers without data exfiltration trigger notification obligations under privacy legislation.

The court granted the motion on consent, finding that the OHA's sector-wide insights and expertise would make a useful contribution to the court's understanding of the operational impacts of privacy and security challenges on health care organizations.

The applicant hospital brought a motion for a sealing order to redact details of its cybersecurity infrastructure from the record of proceedings in a judicial review application.

The underlying application concerned an investigation by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario into a ransomware attack on the hospital.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court granted the sealing order, finding that publication of the information would increase the hospital's vulnerability to future attacks.

The court also awarded costs against the respondent tribunal for improperly opposing the motion and filing a letter in lieu of a factum.

Roger Foley, the plaintiff, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to disqualify Neil Searles as counsel for the Centre for Independent Living in Toronto (CILT).

Foley alleged conflict of interest, divided loyalty, and that Searles would be a necessary witness due to a 1996 article he authored on physician-assisted suicide.

The court, on its own initiative, considered dismissing the motion as frivolous or vexatious.

The court found the motion frivolous, noting that CILT opposed the removal of its counsel, that accepting a binding Supreme Court decision (Carter) is not a basis for disqualification, and that Foley's attempt to call Searles as a witness was unlikely to be permitted at trial.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant moved to stay a defamation action, arguing it was based on evidence obtained in violation of the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01.

The evidence in question was a surreptitious recording voluntarily attached as an exhibit to an affidavit in a separate family litigation proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the deemed undertaking rule applies only to evidence obtained through compulsory discovery mechanisms, not to evidence voluntarily put forward in an affidavit.

The plaintiffs, who operate a specialized First Nations Specific Claims insurance business, brought a motion for an interlocutory and permanent injunction against former employees and independent contractors who started a competing brokerage.

The plaintiffs sought to prohibit the defendants from competing, soliciting clients, and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no non-competition or non-solicitation agreements existed, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants misused proprietary information.

The court ordered the defendants to return and delete any of the plaintiffs' confidential information in their possession, as proposed by the defendants.

The court released an addendum to its reasons for decision dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review.

In the original decision, no costs were ordered because the panel had not received the parties' agreement on costs.

The parties subsequently advised the court that they had agreed the successful party would be entitled to $140,000 in costs.

The court varied its reasons to award the respondent $140,000 in costs.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the school board's decisions finding he breached the code of conduct, imposing sanctions, and confirming those decisions.

The breach involved extreme and disrespectful comments made during a debate on adding gender identity and expression to the code of conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board had the authority to reconsider an initial vote that failed to find a breach, and that the subsequent decisions reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter rights with the board's statutory objectives to promote a positive and inclusive school climate.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' challenge to Western University's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the university sought partial indemnity costs of $97,721.11.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the case was public interest litigation.

The court rejected this argument, finding the case lacked the exceptional nature required to deviate from the usual costs rules, and noted the applicants were backed by a litigation fund.

The court awarded the university costs fixed at $75,000.

The applicant students sought declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the respondent university's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, arguing that the collection of proof of vaccination violated s. 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court found that the university's broad statutory powers authorized the Policy as a 'lawfully authorized activity' and that the collection of proof of vaccination was 'necessary' to properly administer and enforce the mandate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether certain bargaining proposals were central or local issues under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

Following the Board's decision, the parties reached an agreement that the disputed issues were central, resolving the underlying conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matter because the Board's procedural decision did not set a dangerous precedent requiring appellate intervention.

The appellant, ITP SA, appealed a Master's decision granting a stay of an Ontario action commenced by the respondent, Nexen Energy ULC.

The parties' contract contained a forum selection clause designating Ontario courts and Alberta law.

Following a pipeline rupture, Nexen commenced a multi-party action in Alberta and a protective action in Ontario against ITP.

ITP sought to use the Ontario action solely to determine two limitation of liability clauses under the forum selection clause, while agreeing the rest of the action could proceed in Alberta.

The Master stayed the Ontario action, finding 'strong cause' to deviate from the forum selection clause because ITP could not 'slice and dice' the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct test and made no palpable and overriding error.

The defendant was successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim in its entirety, with leave granted to the plaintiff to plead a claim for breach of contract.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $9,929.48.

The plaintiff, despite being unsuccessful, sought costs of $12,966.56, arguing it achieved substantial success by being granted leave to amend.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, finding no special circumstances to justify awarding costs against the successful party.

The court awarded the defendant its requested costs of $9,929.49, payable in any event of the cause.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety.

The plaintiff, a courier service, sued the defendant medical laboratory for various claims including negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract following the termination of their contract.

The court found the pleading to be a gross violation of the rules of pleading, as it contained evidence, was vague, and included untenable claims.

The court struck the Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim confined solely to a cause of action for breach of contract.

Nexen Energy commenced identical actions in Alberta and Ontario against ITP SA for damages arising from a pipeline rupture.

While the Purchase Order specified Ontario as the exclusive dispute resolution forum, ITP SA defended the Alberta action and sought to use the Ontario forum selection clause to have a discrete issue of law (interpretation of liability limits) adjudicated in Ontario via a Rule 21 motion before the Ontario action was stayed.

Nexen Energy moved to stay its own Ontario action.

The Master found "special circumstances" overriding the forum selection clause, preventing ITP SA from "slicing and dicing" the case.

The Master granted Nexen Energy's motion, permanently staying the Ontario action, and directed ITP SA's motion to Alberta, citing judicial economy, efficiency, and consistency, given the active case management in Alberta and the multi-party nature of the dispute.

The respondent was found in civil contempt for continuing to operate a parking lot in contravention of a zoning by-law and a court injunction.

The contempt was subsequently purged when the parking lot was shut down.

The court accepted a joint submission from the parties and ordered the respondent to pay a $25,000 fine, which removed any profit gained from the contemptuous operation of the lot.

The appellants, plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1782 against a non-party, Bloomberg.

The respondents successfully moved before the case management judge for an order requiring the appellants to obtain authorization under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure before taking any steps to enforce the subpoena.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly held that the appellants could not use the U.S. process to circumvent Ontario's strict rules on pre-certification discovery of non-parties, and that the appellants had failed to make full and fair disclosure to the U.S. court.

The appellant was substantially successful on appeal and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant $7,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis for the appeal.

However, the court declined to alter the costs order from the underlying motion to strike, finding that the respondent remained the successful party on that motion.