Daniel Huffaker

Following the dismissal of their appeals from decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal regarding wind farm approvals, the appellant landowners argued they should not pay costs because the litigation was in the public interest.

The Divisional Court held that while the appeals were not public interest litigation that would merit no costs, they did contain a strong public interest component regarding the constitutionality of the legislative regime.

Taking this into account, along with the lack of particularity in the respondents' bills of costs and the lower scale of costs typically awarded on appeals to the Divisional Court, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents totaling $67,000.

The appellants, residents living near three proposed wind turbine farms, appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) that confirmed the Director's issuance of Renewable Energy Approvals (REAs) for the projects.

The appellants argued that the statutory test requiring them to prove the projects would cause 'serious harm to human health' violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statutory test aligned with the jurisprudential threshold for section 7 claims and did not depart from the consensus scientific view on wind turbines.

The Court also upheld the ERT's treatment of lay witness evidence, its finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Director's REA issuance process for Charter compliance, and its discretionary decisions denying adjournments.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, creed, and reprisal after her Ontario Disability Support Program income support was reduced due to the inclusion of her spouse's income.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing there was no reasonable prospect of success because the Social Benefits Tribunal had previously dismissed a similar claim involving different parties.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario declined to dismiss the application, finding that the applicant had made a legitimate choice of venue to have her human rights issues decided at the HRTO, and the non-binding authority of another tribunal did not preclude her claim from proceeding.

The appellant, a milk farmer, provided unpasteurized milk to individuals through a 'cow share agreement' and was convicted of selling and distributing unpasteurized milk contrary to the Health Protection and Promotion Act and operating an unlicensed milk plant contrary to the Milk Act.

On appeal, he argued the legislation did not apply to his private arrangement and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the cow-share program was a public marketing scheme caught by the legislation.

The court also held that the prohibition on unpasteurized milk did not violate the right to life, liberty, or security of the person, and was not arbitrary or overbroad given the scientific evidence of public health risks.

The applicants, who both alleged discrimination regarding the accessibility of bus services in Northern Ontario, sought to consolidate their applications.

Ms. Buck also requested to add the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission as a respondent to her application, as it had already been added to Mr. Bondar's.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and granted the request to add the respondent, finding no prejudice.

The Tribunal also applied the Persaud factors and ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

Following the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Mental Health Act enacted through Brian's Law, the unsuccessful public interest applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered whether this was one of the rare and exceptional cases where costs should be awarded to an unsuccessful constitutional litigant.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and jurisprudence on public interest litigation, the court emphasized factors including the importance of the issues, the novelty of the constitutional challenge, the applicant’s limited resources, and the quality of the litigation.

The court also considered that interim funding might have been granted had it been requested.

Weighing all factors, the court concluded that the circumstances justified a partial costs award.

The Municipality of North Middlesex appealed two decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal had struck the Municipality's Notice of Constitutional Question and refused to grant it public interest standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal correctly applied the law, did not err in principle, and provided compelling reasons.

Applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to Ontario’s Mental Health Act introduced by Brian’s Law, including expanded civil commitment criteria (Box B) and the community treatment order regime.

They alleged the provisions violated ss. 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by permitting involuntary psychiatric assessment, detention, and community-based treatment for persons not posing a danger to themselves or others.

The court held that the legislation pursued a dual purpose of public safety and improved treatment for individuals with serious mental illness, and that the impugned provisions were neither overbroad, arbitrary, vague, nor grossly disproportionate.

Procedural safeguards, individualized clinical assessments, and consent mechanisms supported the statutory scheme’s constitutionality.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

In an application challenging the constitutionality of section 10(5) of the Coroners Act for not mandating inquests into the deaths of migrant farm workers, the adjudicator issued interim procedural rulings.

The adjudicator ruled that expert witnesses would affirm their reports without a prior voir dire, with qualifications and weight to be argued in final submissions.

The adjudicator also admitted document briefs into evidence without requiring witnesses to formally identify each document.

Finally, the adjudicator denied the applicant's request to call reply evidence regarding the causes of heart attacks among migrant workers, finding that such evidence should have been led in the case in chief.

The applicant filed a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 to reactivate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The applicant withdrew her appeal, and the respondents either did not object or failed to respond to the request.

The Tribunal found the request to proceed appropriate, granted it, and directed the application be returned to the Registrar for processing.

The applicant, who uses a wheelchair, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following the respondent's cancellation of passenger train service in Northern Ontario.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the allegation that the cancellation itself was discriminatory, focusing instead on the inaccessibility of the replacement bus service.

The Tribunal found that the bus inaccessibility allegation was present in the original application and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to clarify these allegations.