Elaine Atkinson

The appellant was ordered to undergo a psychiatric assessment under s. 672.11 of the Criminal Code and was held in a detention centre for 15 days before a hospital bed became available.

She brought a proposed class action alleging Charter violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence by the Crown for failing to immediately transfer her to a hospital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action, finding that the Criminal Code permits detention in a jail pending transfer to a hospital, the detention was lawful, and the Crown owed no fiduciary duty to the appellant that would override its public interest obligations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the definition of disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) was not discriminatory and did not conflict with the Human Rights Code.

The appellant argued that because he met the broader definition of disability under the Code, denying him benefits under the narrower ODSPA definition was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ODSPA is a special program designed to ameliorate the conditions of a disadvantaged group under s. 14(1) of the Code.

The government is not required to extend benefits to every conceivable member of a broad class, and providing benefits to the most disadvantaged is not discriminatory.

The appellants, commercial fishers on Lake Erie, challenged the regulatory regime under which the provincial Minister of Natural Resources imposed catch quotas for walleye and yellow perch on their licences.

They argued that the federal Fisheries Act and regulations did not validly delegate this authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister fettered her discretion and acted unreasonably by adopting the catch recommendations of the international Lake Erie Committee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Governor in Council validly sub-delegated the authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister's reliance on the Committee's recommendations was both reasonable and not a fettering of discretion.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision finding that s. 5(2) of the ODSPA, which denies benefits to individuals whose sole impairment is addiction, violated the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the respondents, who were disabled by alcoholism, were discriminated against.

The Court confirmed that the Tribunal was not required to apply the third, dignity-focused step of the Law test to establish discrimination under the Code.

The appellants commenced a proposed class action alleging that the procedures used to process claims for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits were inefficient and procedurally unfair, claiming negligence and breaches of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim but granted leave to amend the s. 7 claim solely regarding the failure to give reasons for denying benefits.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and s. 15 claims, but expanded the leave to amend the s. 7 claim to include other potential procedural fairness deficiencies beyond just the failure to give reasons.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and varied the order below in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

No costs were ordered.

The defendant, Ontario, sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action and refusing to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff's claim alleged that detaining individuals in jail while awaiting a psychiatric hospital bed under a Criminal Code assessment order violated Charter rights and breached fiduciary duties, relying on the decision in R. v. Hussein.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification decision because the motion judge accepted the plaintiff's legal interpretation of Hussein as a pleaded fact, and because individual issues regarding the separate purposes of detention and assessment could overwhelm common issues.

The Children's Lawyer for Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that dismissed its application for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order.

The Commissioner had ordered the disclosure of certain records requested by a former client of the Children's Lawyer.

On judicial review, the Commissioner defended her decision on a new ground, arguing the Children's Lawyer was not acting as Crown counsel.

The Children's Lawyer challenged the Commissioner's standing to raise this new argument.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court properly exercised its discretion under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to grant the Commissioner full standing to ensure a fully informed adjudication.

The appellant occupied public lands under a land use permit that expired in 1997.

After his claim for an interest in the lands was dismissed in separate proceedings, the Crown applied for vacant possession.

The motion judge granted the application pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Public Lands Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had no authorization to occupy the lands and that his various grounds of appeal were irrelevant to the Crown's entitlement to possession.

Following the dismissal of the moving party's motion for a stay, the Crown sought its costs of responding to the motion.

The moving party did not file costs submissions.

The court awarded the Crown its costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at the requested amount of $500, noting the Crown's preparation of materials and multiple appearances.

The appellant, a charity licensed to sell break open lottery tickets (BOTs), brought a class action seeking restitution of a provincial administration fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional indirect tax.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment to strike the restitution claim, adducing evidence that the fee was borne by consumers through a reduced prize board, not by the charities.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the appellant failed to adduce evidence showing a genuine issue for trial regarding who bore the burden of the fee or its entitlement to restitution.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the Crown and police for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, conspiracy to injure, and intentional infliction of harm after his sexual assault conviction was overturned based on new DNA evidence.

The Crown successfully moved to strike the claims for abuse of process, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of harm on the basis that malicious prosecution is the only tort available against a prosecutor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the jurisprudence is not fully settled on whether the four elements of malicious prosecution must always be proven in every civil action against a prosecutor, and therefore it was inappropriate to strike the claims at this early stage.

At the commencement of a judicial review application, the applicant raised a preliminary objection without notice, arguing the Information and Privacy Commissioner should not be permitted to address the correctness of its own decision.

The Divisional Court adjourned the application, ordering that the preliminary objection be properly briefed with facta and that an amicus curiae be appointed to assist the court on the substantive issues in the event the Commissioner is denied standing to argue the correctness of the decision.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined the quantum of costs following written submissions.

The court noted little significant difference between the amounts submitted by the parties but preferred the appellant's response, fixing costs at $9,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Information and Privacy Commissioner's finding that a requested record did not contain 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant argued the Divisional Court erred by requiring 'detailed and convincing evidence' to establish identifiability.

The Court of Appeal agreed that this evidentiary standard was too demanding, but dismissed the appeal, finding the Commissioner's decision was reasonable given the paucity of evidence presented by the Ministry.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to reinstate his driver's licence following a suspension for impaired driving.

He argued that the six-month follow-up interview required by the Remedial Measures Program was not authorized by law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that a purposive interpretation of the Highway Traffic Act and its regulations authorized the three-component program, including the follow-up interview.

Furthermore, the application was moot as the applicant's licence had expired and been suspended for other infractions.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of the top ten medical procedures billed to OHIP by the highest-billing general practitioner in Toronto.

The Ministry argued the records constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the physician was not identifiable from the requested records.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services appealed arbitration orders which held that the French Language Services Act applied to the Minister's Committee on Designated Assessment Centres and the Designated Assessment Centres.

Before the appeal was heard, the insured and the insurer settled all issues in dispute.

The Superintendent subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal due to mootness.

The Director of Arbitrations granted the withdrawal without conditions or expenses, noting that the arbitration decisions stand but have not been reviewed on the merits.

The Superintendent of Financial Services appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decisions which held that the French Language Services Act applied to Designated Assessment Centres.

Before the appeal could be heard, the insured and the insurer settled all their disputes.

The Superintendent subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal on the basis that the settlement rendered the matter moot.

The Director of Arbitrations granted the request and ordered the appeal withdrawn without conditions or costs, noting that the arbitrator's decisions remain intact as their merits were not reviewed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion seeking various forms of relief against the Crown, including an injunction to prevent entry onto disputed lands, damages for the destruction of a gate, an order to search Ministry records, and leave to amend his statement of claim to plead conspiracy and punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision in its entirety, finding no errors in the refusal of the injunction, the determination that damages could not be granted on such a motion, the finding on disclosure, and the exercise of discretion to refuse the amendments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.