David Stratas

The Criminal Lawyers' Association sought access to a police report and legal advice regarding an investigation into alleged police misconduct in a murder case.

The Minister refused disclosure under the law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The CLA argued that the Act's failure to apply a public interest override to these exemptions violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 2(b) does not guarantee access to all government documents, but only where access is necessary for meaningful public discussion and does not encroach on protected privileges.

The Court found no Charter violation, as the exemptions themselves already incorporate public interest considerations.

The matter regarding the law enforcement exemption was remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the Minister's exercise of discretion.

Class counsel appealed an order fixing their fees at $6.3 million plus GST, which was approximately half the amount agreed upon in their contingency fee agreements.

The motion judge had reduced the base fee by 25% and applied a multiplier of 2.6, finding the requested $12 million fee excessive in relation to the $40 million settlement recovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge applied the proper test, considered all relevant factors, and made no palpable and overriding error in determining a fair and reasonable fee.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class proceeding against the manufacturer of the drug Vioxx sought to have a former federal Minister of Health represent them on a certification motion.

The defendant successfully moved to disqualify the lawyer under rule 6.05(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits a lawyer who has left public office from acting in a matter for which they had substantial responsibility.

The plaintiffs appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge reasonably concluded that the lawyer's former responsibility for Health Canada during the drug's approval created potential private and public conflicts of interest.

The appellants sought costs for their unsuccessful appeal against the dismissal of a summary judgment motion, arguing the appeal was necessary to establish that the motion judge's observations were obiter.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting the law was already well-established, and awarded costs to the respondents.

The respondents claimed $120,000, but the court fixed costs at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST, finding the claimed amount excessive for a one-day appeal.

The defendants in a class action regarding payday loans appealed the dismissal of their renewed motion to stay the proceeding based on arbitration clauses in the loan agreements.

They argued that recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions changed the law, entitling them to a stay despite their previous unsuccessful stay motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied.

The court exercised its discretion against allowing relitigation, finding that the plaintiffs' reliance on the prior determination and the advanced stage of the litigation outweighed the defendants' loss of the right to arbitrate.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decided that employer contributions to an injured worker's health, welfare, and pension benefit plan were not 'earnings' under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The Divisional Court quashed this decision, finding it patently unreasonable because the Tribunal failed to consider the legislative history of the definition of earnings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Tribunal's appeal, holding that the Tribunal was bound to apply the Board's operational policy, which did not include such contributions as earnings.

The Tribunal's decision was rational and entitled to deference, and the failure to consider legislative history did not constitute a reviewable legal error.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike out applications brought by four physicians.

The physicians had applied to the Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The College argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matters should be heard by the administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for striking pleadings and properly concluded it was not plain and obvious the applications would fail, as the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction over Charter challenges.

The appellants appealed a decision recognizing a U.S. civil judgment against them for over $36 million.

They argued that they were denied a meaningful opportunity to defend the U.S. action because outstanding Canadian criminal charges precluded them from testifying in the U.S. proceeding without incriminating themselves.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants could have testified in the U.S. proceeding and subsequently argued for the exclusion of that evidence in their Canadian criminal trial under the Charter or the trial judge's common-law discretion.

The applicant submitted a freedom of information request for records concerning an Ontario Provincial Police review of alleged police and Crown misconduct.

The Ministry refused disclosure, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemptions and found the public interest override in s. 23 of the Act did not apply to them.

The Court of Appeal held that the exclusion of these exemptions from the public interest override infringed the applicant's freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

The Court remedied the breach by reading the exemptions into s. 23.

The appellant appealed a Court of Appeal decision that set aside a contempt order against the respondent.

The respondent had been found in contempt for failing to secure his support obligations with an irrevocable letter of credit and to post security for costs.

The Court of Appeal had held that the motions judge lacked jurisdiction under Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the orders were for the 'payment of money'.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting appellate judge that neither security order amounted to an order for the payment of money, and reinstated the contempt order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act, which sought an order allowing him to play in the Greater Toronto Hockey League despite not meeting residency requirements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had subsequently moved and played in the league for two seasons.

The court declined to hear the appeal on the broader issue of whether the residency requirements generally contravened the Act, as this was not the focus of the original application.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action in Ontario against Money Mart and its American parent company, Dollar Financial, alleging they charged criminal interest rates on pay-day loans.

Dollar Financial appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to set aside service ex juris and stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a good arguable case against Dollar Financial based on alter ego, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment theories.

Applying the Muscutt factors, the Court held there was a real and substantial connection between Dollar Financial and Ontario, giving the Ontario court jurisdiction.

The respondent was assaulted at work and claimed benefits for traumatic vertebrobasilar ischemia (TVBI).

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denied the claim, preferring medical evidence that the assault did not cause TVBI.

The Tribunal later upheld its decision on reconsideration after reviewing new evidence from a co-worker.

The Divisional Court quashed the reconsideration decision as patently unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence, resolved the conflicting medical opinions, and reached a reasonable conclusion.

The applicant, a lobbyist and lawyer, sought judicial review of a Commissioner's order in a public inquiry.

The Commissioner ordered that sealed boxes of the applicant's documents be reviewed by Commission counsel for relevance and potential solicitor-client privilege, with unresolved privilege claims to be determined by a Superior Court judge.

The applicant argued this procedure violated his Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the screening process minimally impaired solicitor-client privilege and that Commission counsel was not in an adversarial position.

The appellant challenged the institutional independence and impartiality of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, arguing that the Canadian Human Rights Commission's power to issue binding guidelines and the Tribunal Chairperson's power to extend members' terms compromised procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's main function is adjudicative but it also serves to implement government policy, warranting a lower standard of independence than a court.

The Court found that the guideline power is a form of law that does not fetter the Tribunal improperly, and the power to extend appointments does not threaten security of tenure or impartiality.

The defendant moved for directions regarding a proposed appeal from an order dismissing its Rule 21 motion to dismiss or stay the action.

The defendant sought a determination on whether the order was interlocutory or final, and if final, an extension of time to appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because the motions judge declined to decide the issues due to conflicting evidence and complexity, meaning no substantive rights were finally adjudicated.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the defendant successfully obtained the clarification it sought.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, was arrested and detained for eight days pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant requested by Germany for extradition purposes.

He sued Germany for damages for personal injuries (mental distress, denial of liberty, damage to reputation) resulting from his arrest.

Germany claimed sovereign immunity under the State Immunity Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that Germany did not waive its immunity by initiating the extradition process, as the civil action was separate.

Furthermore, the 'personal injury' exception in s. 6(a) of the Act applies only to physical injury, not to the mental distress or loss of liberty claimed by the appellant.

The action against Germany was dismissed.

The plaintiff was arrested for extradition to Germany and subsequently brought a civil action against Canada and Germany for damages for negligence and abuse of power.

The Crown successfully moved for a stay of the civil action pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings.

The plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in principle by failing to apply the high threshold test requiring extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to justify a stay of civil proceedings when concurrent criminal proceedings are pending.

Inco Limited was charged with discharging untreated mine effluent into a creek and failing to report the discharge under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Crown appealed the summary conviction appeal judge's decision ordering a new trial on the basis that the trial court applied the incorrect test for water impairment.

Inco cross-appealed, arguing the charges should be stayed as an abuse of process because the environmental officer lacked statutory authority to conduct a warrantless inspection and violated the Charter rights of its employees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, confirming that the capacity to impair water quality must be assessed based on the nature and circumstances of the discharge.

The Court allowed Inco's cross-appeal, holding that while the corporation lacked standing to assert its employees' Charter rights, a new trial was required to determine whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence was committed before conducting the inspection, which would dictate whether a warrant was required.

The appellant was arrested and detained in Canada pursuant to an extradition request by the Federal Republic of Germany.

He subsequently brought a civil action against Germany and Canada claiming damages for mental distress and restriction of liberty.

Germany successfully moved to dismiss the action on the basis of sovereign immunity.

On appeal, the appellant argued that Germany had submitted to the court's jurisdiction by initiating the extradition proceedings and that his claim fell within the 'personal injury' exception under the State Immunity Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that extradition proceedings are distinct from the civil suit and that the 'personal injury' exception requires physical injury.