Christopher P. Thompson

The appellants brought a civil action in Small Claims Court against a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, alleging injurious falsehood, misfeasance in public office, obstruction of justice, and fabricating evidence.

The claims arose from the judge's refusal to allow one appellant to act as agent for the other in family court, and the judge's subsequent editing of the hearing transcript.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action without reasons.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the failure to provide reasons was an error of law, the matter could be decided de novo.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the judge's actions were carried out in the course of his judicial functions and were therefore protected by absolute judicial immunity.

The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race and related grounds.

The first application concerned the failure to progress him to full-time presiding status, and the second concerned the refusal to indemnify his legal costs for defending criminal charges of sexual assault.

The Tribunal dismissed the first application as out of time, noting a delay of over three years without a reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the second application as an abuse of process, finding the applicant's claim that the sexual assault charges arose within the course of his employment to be preposterous and without any chance of success.

Following the dismissal of Ontario's motion for leave to appeal, the successful plaintiff sought costs.

Ontario disputed the number of hours claimed and argued it should not be required to reimburse the plaintiff for GST on costs, citing previous case law.

The court disagreed, holding that where a successful party is indemnified for costs, the province cannot escape indemnification for GST.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $13,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and GST.

The Attorney General of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a motions judge's order refusing to dissolve an injunction against Aboriginal protestors occupying a residential development, and requiring the Attorney General to take carriage of criminal contempt proceedings while reporting back to the court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

It held that the motions judge erred in refusing to dissolve the injunction after the Ontario government purchased the property and consented to the occupation.

The Court maintained the referral of the contempt matters to the Attorney General, but imposed strict conditions, finding that the motions judge's previous contempt process was fundamentally flawed for denying procedural fairness and improperly interfering with police and prosecutorial discretion.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award and a decision of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance regarding the inclusion of cadet service in the calculation of 'continuous active service' for a seniority premium, finding he lacked jurisdiction to define the term as the parties had not yet done so.

The Commission subsequently refused to appoint a conciliation officer, finding no notice to bargain had been given for the current collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review for the arbitration award was patent unreasonableness and for the Commission's decision was reasonableness.

The Court found neither decision met the threshold for intervention and dismissed both applications for judicial review.

The respondent, charged with indecent assault, sought the production of the complainant's counselling records held by third-party institutions.

The trial judge ordered the records produced.

The third parties appealed the interlocutory order.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act.

On the substantive issue, the Court applied the framework established in the companion case of R. v. O'Connor, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy and equality rights.

The Court found that the trial judge erred in ordering production without first determining likely relevance and balancing the competing Charter rights.

The appeal was allowed and the order for production was quashed.