Colin Baxter

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application against the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

The applicant alleged constructive discrimination after the National Committee on Accreditation required him to complete two years of in-class instruction because his foreign law degree was obtained through online self-study.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the mode of study policy was not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and applied to all students regardless of place of origin, age, or family status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The applicant developer sought declarations that its insurers, Aviva and Northbridge, owed a duty to defend and indemnify it in a class action.

The class action alleged the developer negligently misrepresented that condominium units would include a heating system and storage locker, which were not provided.

The insurers denied coverage on the basis that the developer's failure to provide the items was an intentional business decision, not an 'occurrence' or accident.

The court agreed with the insurers, finding that the negligent misrepresentation claims were entirely derivative of the intentional breach of contract.

The applications for coverage were dismissed.

The applicant developer sought declarations that its insurers, Aviva and Northbridge, owed a duty to defend and indemnify it in a class action.

The class action alleged the developer negligently misrepresented that condominium units would include a heating system and storage locker, which were not provided.

The insurers denied coverage on the basis that the developer's failure to provide the items was an intentional business decision, not an 'occurrence' or accident.

The court agreed with the insurers, finding that the negligent misrepresentation claims were entirely derivative of the intentional breach of contract.

The applications for coverage were dismissed.

The applicant, the Mayor of Hawkesbury, sought an interlocutory stay of a municipal council decision regarding potential sanctions following an Integrity Commissioner's report finding she breached the Code of Conduct.

She also sought a sealing order for certain documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the statutory requirement that such reports be made public.

The request for a sealing order was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's decision refusing to dismiss a defamation action under the Anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents, a cigarette manufacturer and its CEO, sued over a magazine article published by the appellants that connected them to organized crime, terrorism, and tobacco smuggling.

The motion judge found the action had substantial merit, that no valid defences existed, and that the harm to the respondents outweighed the public interest in protecting the appellants' expression.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in balancing public interests, in assessing harm without evidence of financial loss, and in rejecting the justification defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision.

The applicant, 1179 Hunt Club Inc., and the respondent, Ottawa Medical Square Inc. (OMS), entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for commercial condominium units.

The transaction failed to close.

Hunt Club sought to retain the $250,000 deposit and hold Ms. Mobarak, OMS's president, personally liable under a purported personal guarantee clause.

The court found that neither party was ready, willing, and able to close the transaction on the scheduled date, leading to the termination of the agreement.

Consequently, OMS was entitled to the return of its deposit.

The court also determined that the personal guarantee clause was ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, did not amount to a personal guarantee by Ms. Mobarak.

Even if it had, her obligations would have been discharged due to a subsequent reinstatement agreement that varied the original contract without her consent as guarantor.

This motion arose from an application by the Attorney General of Canada seeking the return of confidential taxpayer information inadvertently sent to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and an order preventing its future use.

The CBC, as respondent in the main application, brought a motion to compel the production of various documents from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that were refused during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The Master dismissed the CBC's motion, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the issues on the application, nor to the deponent's credibility, and that the requests constituted a 'fishing expedition'.

The applicant sought an interim injunction and judicial review to overturn his disqualification from the position of Vice-President, Student Services for the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) following an election.

The applicant had received the most votes but was disqualified due to alleged electoral offences by another student on his slate.

The court found that the Constitutional Board exceeded its jurisdiction by defining a new electoral offence that was not in force at the time of the election and by disqualifying the entire slate based on this expanded interpretation.

The court concluded that the electoral decisions were subject to judicial review and set aside the disqualification.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner's order requiring the disclosure of Change Notices and edited Detailed Feasibility Notices related to a government contract.

The applicant argued the records contained confidential commercial information and their disclosure would cause competitive harm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the Change Notices were negotiated rather than 'supplied' by the applicant, and that the applicant failed to provide detailed and convincing evidence that disclosure of the edited Detailed Feasibility Notices would result in a reasonable expectation of probable harm.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to stay a defamation action pending the completion of a related Federal Court action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiff had not justified a substantial indemnity award, as the defendants simply lost a motion they were entitled to bring.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that costs should be in the cause, noting that the unsuccessful motion caused unnecessary expense.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $21,500.

The defendants moved for a temporary stay of a defamation action in the Superior Court of Justice until the completion of a parallel copyright infringement and statutory claims action in the Federal Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet the heavy onus of showing that continuing the Ontario action would cause them prejudice or injustice, or that a stay would not prejudice the plaintiff.

The court noted that the defamation action involved different substantive elements and remedies not available in the Federal Court.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent municipality sought partial indemnity costs of $27,321.55.

The applicant argued for no costs or symbolic costs, asserting he acted as a public interest litigant regarding municipal workplace harassment obligations.

The court applied the criteria for public interest litigants and awarded the respondent symbolic costs fixed at $5,000.

Le requérant, ancien maire et contribuable municipal, sollicitait un contrôle judiciaire, des déclarations et un mandamus relativement à une résolution municipale ayant maintenu le statu quo face à des plaintes de harcèlement au travail déposées contre un conseiller.

La cour a conclu que le différend n’était pas strictement théorique, mais que les réparations demandées n’auraient aucun effet pratique compte tenu de l’adoption subséquente d’une nouvelle résolution mandatant une enquête indépendante, du départ du conseiller visé du conseil et du litige civil déjà engagé par l’employé plaignant.

En appliquant les conditions du mandamus, la cour a jugé que la forme de l’enquête relevait d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire et que la municipalité n’avait pas agi de mauvaise foi en retenant une enquête confidentielle dans un contexte de litige.

La requête a été rejetée avec dépens à déterminer.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking interpretation of long-term disability insurance policy provisions relating to coordination of benefits and cost-of-living indexation.

The dispute concerned whether Canada Pension Plan disability benefits should be treated as a direct offset from the policy entitlement or as part of an all-source maximum calculation, and whether indexation should apply to the gross policy amount or the net benefit paid.

The court held that the policy unambiguously required CPP disability payments to be deducted directly from the monthly policy entitlement and that indexation applied only to the net amount actually payable after the deduction.

Extrinsic evidence, including an insurer letter that had initially applied an indirect offset, could not create ambiguity where the contractual language was clear.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

In a long‑term disability insurance action, the plaintiff brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of an affidavit attaching a psychiatrist’s report relied on by the defendant in support of a motion for additional medical examinations under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Alternatively, the plaintiff sought the right to cross‑examine the psychiatrist.

The court held that the report was not being tendered as expert opinion evidence but merely to demonstrate that the examining physician recommended additional testing.

Because the court was not asked to accept the scientific validity of the recommendations, the report could be attached to an affidavit on information and belief and did not trigger the right to cross‑examine the physician.

The preliminary motion was therefore dismissed and the main motion for further examinations was permitted to proceed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in a complex software copyright and breach of confidence action.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful.

The plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $1,110,000 in security for costs, payable in three installments, to balance the defendants' need for protection with the risk of stifling the litigation.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to amend its statement of defence in a long-term disability action and sought production of documents relating to the plaintiff’s prior tort settlement arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The proposed amendments pleaded rights of subrogation and set-off based on the plaintiff’s recovery for income loss from the tort action.

The court held that s. 267.8(17) of the Insurance Act eliminates an insurer’s right of subrogation in respect of payments for income loss under an income continuation benefit plan arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The proposed pleadings asserting subrogation and set-off were therefore legally untenable and had no realistic prospect of success.

As a result, those amendments were refused and the related document production request was dismissed, although other unrelated amendments were permitted.

The plaintiff accounting firm sought costs as a sanction against numerous defendants for alleged delay in providing answers to undertakings, advisements, and refusals arising from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants took approximately sixteen months to provide all answers and that the motion was necessary to compel compliance.

The court found that although the timeline was lengthy, the delay was largely explained by the large number of defendants, the volume of undertakings, and the need to obtain detailed accounting information from multiple franchise operators.

The court concluded there was no evidence of uncooperative conduct or improper litigation tactics by the defendants or their counsel.

In the circumstances, a costs sanction was not justified.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation based on two letters.

Upon discovering the letters had not been published, the plaintiffs brought a motion to dismiss their own action and sought costs against the defendants.

The motion judge treated the motion as a discontinuance and awarded costs to the defendants under Rule 23.05.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that a plaintiff cannot move to dismiss its own action to avoid the presumptive costs consequences of discontinuance.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a committee decision ordering the reinstatement of a teacher who had resigned after a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old student.

The College sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the qualifications of the teacher's social worker and argued the committee's decision was unreasonable and lacked sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test, the committee's decision was reasonable based on the evidence, and the reasons provided were adequate.