Darrell Lee Kloeze

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory ruling made by a coroner at the outset of an inquest into a police shooting.

The ruling limited the scope of cross-examination of two police officers regarding their consultations with counsel prior to making their notes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the basis of prematurity, holding that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings, particularly coroner's inquests, absent exceptional circumstances that would result in a fundamental failing of justice.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under Rule 3.04(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiff failed to comply with a court‑ordered litigation timetable.

The court reviewed the procedural history and found that the timetable had been altered several times with the consent of both parties.

The evidence also showed that the defendant himself had not delivered an Affidavit of Documents as required by the timetable.

Applying the jurisprudence that dismissal is a discretionary remedy reserved for egregious conduct, the court concluded the moving party failed to meet the required burden.

The motion to dismiss was therefore refused.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Second Amended Statement of Claim, which alleged malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and various other torts against numerous police officers and Crown attorneys.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, also sought to rely on a Draft Fresh as Amended Claim.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, and constituted an improper collateral attack on the plaintiff's prior criminal convictions.

Leave to amend the claim was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on disability, sex, gender identity, and family status, relating to her experiences as a litigant in the Ontario court system.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to interactions with judges and their procedural and substantive decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that judicial decisions do not constitute a service under the Code and that judicial immunity applies.

The applicants, appealing their convictions, sought disclosure or production of band lists used by the Court Services Division to prepare jury rolls in the Kenora District and Simcoe County.

They argued the lists were necessary to demonstrate systemic underrepresentation of First Nations persons on the jury rolls, which violated their Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, finding that the requested records met the 'likely relevant' test for third-party production under O'Connor, as they could be used to test the statements of Crown deponents and understand the jury roll preparation process.

The applicants, an employee and the employer, sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Minister of Labour regarding the negotiation of a first collective agreement.

The Board had ordered first agreement arbitration, and the Minister subsequently cancelled a scheduled final offer vote.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board did not breach its duty of fairness, the Vice-Chair was not biased, the decision to order arbitration was reasonable, and the Minister had the jurisdiction to cancel the vote.

The applicant, who has strabismus, was denied the opportunity to continue in the application process for a police constable position because he failed to meet the stereo acuity vision standard.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the standard was prima facie discriminatory and that the respondents failed to establish it as a bona fide occupational requirement.

The evidence did not demonstrate that the standard was reasonably necessary to ensure the safe performance of police driving duties.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $8,000 for injury to dignity, ordered the issuance of a Certificate of Results, and directed the respondents to cease relying on the standard.

The applicant, a paralegal with a hearing impairment, filed a human rights complaint alleging a failure to accommodate his disability by an adjudicator of the Landlord and Tenant Board during a hearing.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the adjudicator was protected by judicial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the adjudicator's decisions regarding the applicant's accommodation requests were integral to her decision-making process and therefore protected by the common law principle of judicial or quasi-judicial immunity.

The Tribunal also found that this immunity was not displaced by the Tenant Protection Act.

The application was dismissed against all respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a maximum secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably applied the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Board was entitled to rely on the appellant's sexually violent history, stalking history, institutional offences, and psychopathy to conclude that maximum security was the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs following the dismissal of their application for judicial review regarding the closure of two long-term care institutions.

Although unsuccessful on the main issue of the Minister's statutory power to close the facilities, the applicants achieved partial success on the issue of consent for relocating residents.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicants a portion of their costs, emphasizing the importance of access to justice and the applicants' role in advocating for the fundamental interests of approximately 1,000 severely disabled adults.

The applicants, litigation guardians for severely developmentally delayed adults residing in Schedule I facilities, sought judicial review of the Minister of Community and Social Services' decision to close the remaining institutions.

The applicants argued the Minister lacked statutory authority under the Developmental Services Act to close the facilities.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister's broad discretionary power to establish and maintain facilities included the power to close them.

However, the Court declared that the consent of the incapable residents' substitute decision makers is required before they can be transferred to community placements, invoking the parens patriae jurisdiction to protect their fundamental interests.

The appellants challenged Ontario legislation repealing agricultural labour protections and excluding agricultural workers from the statutory labour relations regime.

The majority held that, in the labour relations context, freedom of association under s. 2(d) may impose a positive obligation where exclusion from protective legislation substantially interferes with the ability of a vulnerable group to organize.

The Court found that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the LRA substantially impeded their capacity to form and maintain employee associations and created a chilling effect on associational activity.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the wholesale exclusion was overly broad and failed minimum impairment.

The appeal was allowed and the declarations of invalidity were suspended for 18 months.