Darrell Lee Kloeze

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 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 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.