David Tortell

The applicant First Nation sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and the Minister of Finance regarding the modernization of gaming in Ontario, specifically the decisions to tender and bundle a gaming zone that included the applicant's reserve.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the impugned decisions were policy and commercial in nature and therefore not justiciable.

The court also found no bad faith, no denial of procedural fairness, and no breach of the duty to consult.

Furthermore, the court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the application for excessive and unexplained delay that caused prejudice.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought to challenge a decision terminating his rent subsidy, which had led to his eviction.

The court found that the applicant failed to perfect his application for over a year and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, given the passage of time and the fact that the applicant had already been evicted, the court concluded that the merits and justice of the case did not warrant continuing the proceeding.

The motion was dismissed with no costs.

The Chief Building Official issued building permits for a body rub parlour in a specific zoning area.

A competing business appealed the decision to the Superior Court, where the appeal judge rescinded the permits, finding the CBO's interpretation of the word 'front' in the zoning by-law to be unreasonable.

The CBO and the permit holder appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard of review.

The CBO's interpretation of the by-law was reasonable.

The applicant alleged that he was denied entry to a movie theatre, subjected to racist remarks by a theatre employee, and subsequently mistreated by a police officer based on his race and place of origin.

At the hearing, the adjudicator found the applicant's evidence to be profoundly unreliable, internally inconsistent, and entirely contradicted by video surveillance footage.

The video showed the applicant sneaking into the theatre and acting aggressively, rather than presenting a valid ticket as claimed.

Finding no credible evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application at the hearing without requiring the respondents to call their full case.

The applicant, a body rub parlour operator, appealed the Chief Building Official's (CBO) decision to issue a building permit to a competitor (the respondent) in the same building.

The appeal concerned the interpretation of a zoning by-law that prohibited certain commercial uses on properties "fronting" on the west side of Victoria Park Avenue for a depth of 60m.

The building's main entrance was on a side street, but its side wall ran along Victoria Park Avenue.

The court found the applicant had standing as a business competitor and that the CBO's decision should be reviewed on a reasonableness standard.

Interpreting "front" in the context of the by-law's policy to organize land uses along the main thoroughfare, the court concluded that the building "fronted" on Victoria Park Avenue.

Therefore, the respondent's body rub parlour was not a permitted use in that zone, and the building permit was improperly issued.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code against the Chief of Toronto Police Service and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The applicant claimed the police engaged in gender profiling by arresting him for criminal harassment based on a female complainant's allegations while ignoring his claims of being threatened.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own belief to connect the alleged unfair treatment to his gender.

The appellant appealed from orders striking his statement of claim against seven respondents without leave to amend and setting aside a noting in default against one respondent.

The motions judge found the claims, which included allegations of torture and invasion of privacy, to be frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and lacking any reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the decision to set aside the noting in default and agreeing that the pleadings were properly struck under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Multiple defendants moved to strike a self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and, in one instance, to set aside a noting in default.

The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were vague, nonsensical, unsupported, and in several respects beyond the court's jurisdiction, including challenges relating to information access and social benefits matters.

Applying the governing test for setting aside default and the pleading standard for striking claims, the court found the action frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The noting in default against one defendant was set aside, and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety against all moving defendants without leave to amend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the police regarding an arrest in 2012.

The application was filed more than one year after the alleged events.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith and if a later incident in 2014 constituted a series of incidents.

The Tribunal found that the 2014 incident was not part of a series and that the applicant failed to provide a credible good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed for being filed outside the statutory time limit.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing a civil action against federal parole officers, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the plaintiff’s litigation conduct was vexatious, misleading, and devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff repeatedly attempted to mislead the court, engaged in deceptive conduct, unnecessarily complicated the proceedings, and pursued a claim lacking any legal merit.

Applying the principles of reasonableness, fairness, proportionality, and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the conduct justified substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $70,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant alleged discrimination by a police officer who allegedly used offensive language and acted aggressively during a dispute over a towed vehicle.

The respondents requested a deferral pending a judicial review in an unrelated case, which the Tribunal denied.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because there was no evidence linking the officer's conduct to the applicant's race, colour, ethnic origin, or disability.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a municipal by-law that restricted the operating hours of licensed body rub parlours.

The appellant argued the City acted unreasonably and lacked sufficient evidence connecting the nuisance to licensed operations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that under section 213 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the by-law is not reviewable on the ground of reasonableness, and finding no palpable or overriding error in the application judge's evidentiary findings.

Following a previous costs endorsement, the court considered the written costs submissions of the corporate intervener, which had been inadvertently overlooked.

The court fixed the corporate intervener's costs at $6,000 and ordered the responding party (applicant in the main proceeding) to pay them.

Following the quashing of an application for judicial review on the basis that it was an abuse of process, the successful respondents and interveners sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondents, noting the awards should reflect the finding of abuse of process.

The court also awarded partial indemnity costs to the individual interveners, who had been added as parties with a direct interest in the proceedings.

Total costs of $30,350 were ordered against the applicant.

The appellant, a federal inmate, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application regarding his classification as a medium security risk.

While the appeal was pending, the appellant was placed on day parole.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the issue of his security classification moot.

The Court also noted that correctional authorities retain discretion under the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations to consider factors beyond the custody rating score when determining security classifications.

The appellant, an inmate serving a six-year sentence, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application challenging his classification as a medium security risk.

While the appeal was pending, the appellant was placed on day parole, rendering the classification issue moot.

The Court of Appeal also found that the grounds of appeal lacked merit, as the correctional authorities had the jurisdiction to delegate the grievance decision and retained discretion to consider factors beyond the Custody Rating Score.

The appeal was dismissed.