Christopher P. Thompson

The parties to an expropriation compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act submitted a proposed procedural order to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued the procedural order on consent to govern the future conduct of the proceeding, including setting dates for discovery, mediation, and an eight-day hearing.

The applicant hotel owner sought damages and declaratory relief against the Ministry of Transportation for business losses caused by ferry project delays.

The Ministry moved to strike the application for failure to provide the mandatory 60-day notice under s. 18(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The court struck the claims for damages but allowed the claims for declaratory relief regarding the interpretation of the parties' agreements to proceed.

The court also converted the surviving application into an action due to material facts in dispute and the need for factual matrix evidence, and adjourned the matter.

The appellant, a registered career college, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The Superintendent proposed revocation on the basis that the appellant failed to provide refunds to students after its Diagnostic Medical Sonography program was revoked and lost accreditation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant ignored written demands for refunds from students for over ten months, causing them financial and emotional distress.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refusal to comply with the refund requirements of Ontario Regulation 415/06 demonstrated that it would not operate the college in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal declined to impose the appellant's proposed conditions and directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The applicant career college sought judicial review of a decision by Accreditation Canada to revoke the accreditation of its Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program, and the Superintendent's subsequent decision to revoke the program's approval.

Accreditation Canada brought a motion to stay the judicial review proceedings under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the accreditation contract.

The Divisional Court found that while the accreditation decision was an exercise of statutory authority with sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review, the technical requirements for a mandatory stay in favour of arbitration were met.

The court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and that the subject matter was capable of being arbitrated.

The motion to stay the judicial review was granted.

The applicant career college brought a motion for a stay of the Superintendent's decision to revoke approval of its diagnostic medical sonography program pending a judicial review application.

The revocation followed the loss of the program's accreditation status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable harm, such as financial inability to pay required student refunds.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay to allow students to receive refunds and pursue education elsewhere, rather than remaining trapped in an unaccredited program.

The Crown brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence action.

The plaintiffs, hog farmers, alleged the Crown's 2007-2008 financial assistance program was negligently designed because it used outdated 2000-2004 sales data, resulting in insufficient payments.

The central issues were whether the program's design decision was a policy or operational decision (policy decisions are immune from negligence liability) and whether the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The court found the design decision was a core policy decision, immune from liability, and alternatively, that the plaintiffs' claim was statute-barred as they had sufficient knowledge of their claim in 2008, not 2014 as they argued.

The Crown's motion for summary dismissal was allowed without costs.

The appellant doctor performed a septorhinoplasty on a patient and charged professional and facility fees for the rhinoplasty component, claiming it was uninsured.

The Ministry of Health determined the entire procedure was medically necessary and therefore an insured service, requiring the doctor to reimburse the patient.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board confirmed the Ministry's decision.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding its interpretation of the Schedule of Benefits was correct and its factual determination that the rhinoplasty was medically necessary was reasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals regarding a flooded access road.

The Township of Georgian Bluffs and the Ministry of Transportation appealed a lower court decision that found the road public, obligated the Township to maintain it, and ordered the Ministry to restore culverts and indemnify the Township.

The Crown's appeal was allowed due to procedural unfairness, as no relief was sought against the Ministry in the original application.

The Township's appeal was dismissed, affirming the public nature of the road based on historical statute labour and common law dedication and acceptance, and upholding its obligation to restore the road.

This appeal concerned a proposed class action by inmates and their families against Bell Canada and the Ontario government regarding allegedly unreasonable and unconscionable collect call rates from correctional facilities.

The motion judge had dismissed claims for an ultra vires tax and a Telecommunications Act breach, and permanently stayed other claims (unjust enrichment, consumer protection, unconscionable contracts, breach of fiduciary duty), deferring to the CRTC's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the ultra vires tax claim, finding the commissions paid to Ontario were proprietary/contractual charges, not taxes.

However, the Court substituted the permanent stay with a temporary stay for the remaining claims.

This was to allow the CRTC to first determine whether it had forborne from regulating these specific rates and, if not, to adjudicate their reasonableness, ensuring access to justice for the appellants if the CRTC declined jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review to declare provisions of O. Reg 282/98 under the Assessment Act invalid.

The applicant argued that the regulation's formula for valuing pipelines resulted in an assessed value greater than current value, which it claimed was inconsistent with the purpose of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the purpose of the Assessment Act is to provide for the assessment and taxation of property, not strictly to assess based on current value.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Act expressly authorizes the Minister to make regulations providing an alternate method for valuing pipelines.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against Ontario for the early cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot Program.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the certification judge erred by engaging in a merits-based analysis of the breach of contract claim rather than applying the 'plain and obvious' test under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the negligence, breach of undertaking, and Charter s. 7 claims, finding that the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision immune from negligence liability and that the Charter claim failed to plead the requisite principles of fundamental justice.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action on behalf of prisoners and their families, alleging that Bell Canada and Ontario charged unconscionable rates for collect calls from provincial correctional facilities.

The plaintiffs sought certification, while the defendants brought cross-motions to stay the action, arguing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice struck the plaintiffs' claims for an ultra vires tax and breach of the Telecommunications Act, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

The court permanently stayed the remaining claims, concluding that the pith and substance of the dispute concerned telecommunications rates, which fall squarely within the specialized jurisdiction and remedial authority of the CRTC.

The appellant, The Catalyst Capital Group Inc., appealed an order striking its claim for misfeasance in public office against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) without leave to amend.

Catalyst alleged HMQ improperly caused its removal as a participant in the Pan Am Athletes’ Village Project.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding that Catalyst's pleadings, despite being extensive, lacked sufficient material facts to plausibly support the required element of bad faith or unlawful conduct for the tort of misfeasance in public office.

The court reiterated that bald allegations of bad faith are insufficient without factual underpinning.

In a proposed class action regarding the rates charged for collect calls made by prisoners in Ontario correctional facilities, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by an employee of the defendant telecommunications company.

The plaintiffs argued the affiant was improperly giving expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the affiant was providing factual evidence regarding the regulatory framework and the operation of the telephone system, not expert opinion.

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's driving instructor licence was revoked by the Ministry of Transportation after he was criminally charged with sexual assault involving a student.

Despite his subsequent acquittal, the Ministry maintained the revocation and required him to apply for a new licence, which it then denied.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the initial revocation decision was profoundly procedurally unfair as it failed to comply with the notice and response requirements of O. Reg 473/07.

The court further held that the subsequent re-application decision did not cure these defects, as it was irreparably compromised by the flawed revocation and improperly reversed the onus of proof.

The decisions were set aside and the licence was ordered reinstated.

The Crown moved to strike out the plaintiff's Second Amended Claim for misfeasance in public office under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff alleged the Crown unlawfully directed Infrastructure Ontario to exclude it from participating in the financing of a public tendering project.

The court found that the Crown was entitled to make decisions adverse to the plaintiff's interests in a public tendering process, and the pleadings did not plausibly support a conclusion that the Crown acted for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

The claim was struck out without leave to amend.

The court also held that, alternatively, the plaintiff would have required leave to proceed under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding kindergarten class sizes.

The arbitrator had interpreted O. Reg. 132/12 under the Education Act as requiring class size caps to be determined only on a specified date in September, allowing sizes to fluctuate thereafter.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation, based on the text, context, and purpose of the regulation, was internally coherent and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for damages resulting from the early termination of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of undertaking, negligence, breach of public law duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the relationship was not contractual, the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision protected by common law and statutory immunity, and there is no constitutional right to the continuation of a government program.

The plaintiff, Catalyst Capital Group Inc., appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out several of its claims against Dundee Kilmer Developments Limited Partnership (DKD), Infrastructure Ontario (IO), and the Crown.

The claims arose from Catalyst's exclusion from financing the 2015 Pan/ParaPan American Games Athletes' Village project.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating Catalyst's claims against DKD for breach of a funding term sheet, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit.

However, the court upheld the striking of unjust enrichment/quantum meruit claims against IO and the Crown, the public law duty claim against IO and the Crown, and the misrepresentation claim against the Crown, finding them either statute-barred, lacking direct benefit, or precluded by statutory immunity.