Emily Owens

The appellants, over 400 healthcare workers, appealed an order striking their action against the provincial Crown and various healthcare organizations regarding a COVID-19 vaccination directive.

The motion judge struck the claims as an abuse of process and for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, finding the action was a broad political inquiry rather than a legally cognizable dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Charter did not apply to the private healthcare respondents, the tort claims lacked material facts, and the unionized and privileged hospital staff appellants were required to pursue their claims in other statutory forums.

Air Canada challenged the Ontario Minister of Finance’s decision to deny repayment of taxes levied under s. 2(4.1) of the Gasoline Tax Act on fuel transfers at the Ottawa airport.

Air Canada argued the tax was constitutionally inapplicable under the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and territorial jurisdiction.

The court held that the tax does not trench on or impair the core of federal aeronautics jurisdiction and that the transaction had a sufficient connection to Ontario to ground the province’s jurisdiction.

The applications were dismissed.

This decision grants an interlocutory injunction exempting all existing supervised consumption sites (SCSs) in Ontario from the operation of section 2 of the Community Care and Recovery Act, 2024, pending a final decision on the merits.

The court finds that the three-part test for injunctive relief is met: there is a serious issue to be tried regarding Charter rights, irreparable harm would result from SCS closures, and the balance of convenience favours the applicants.

The ruling details the public health crisis of opioid use, the role of SCSs in harm reduction, and the disproportionate impact of closures on marginalized populations.

The Member, a teacher whose certificate was mandatorily revoked after being found to have sexually abused a student by making remarks of a sexual nature, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory revocation provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The Member argued the provisions violated his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee admitted expert evidence from both parties.

Applying the Irwin Toy and Oakes tests, the Committee found that while the mandatory revocation provisions do infringe on the Member's freedom of expression, the infringement is demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Committee held that protecting vulnerable students from the harmful effects of sexual abuse is a pressing and substantial objective, and that a bright-line rule of mandatory revocation is rationally connected and proportionate to that goal.

The constitutional motion was dismissed.

The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly challenged the constitutionality of Bill 7, which allows hospitals to transition alternate level of care patients to long-term care homes without their consent.

The applicants argued the legislation violates sections 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by forcing patients to move or pay a daily fee.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no violation of Charter rights.

The court concluded that the legislation is a constitutional measure designed to manage scarce hospital resources.

The plaintiffs, comprising 473 individuals, brought an action against the Ontario government and 54 non-governmental healthcare entities, challenging COVID-19 vaccination policies and public health measures.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction over unionized employees and physicians whose claims were subject to exclusive statutory regimes.

The court also found the action to be an abuse of process due to its prejudicial scope and frivolous pleadings.

Furthermore, the court held that the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for conspiracy, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental anguish, and Charter breaches.

The claim was struck in its entirety, with leave to amend.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their discrimination application.

The underlying complaint alleged age and family status discrimination because the minor applicants were initially denied access to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as moot because the applicants received the requested vaccine prior to the hearing, and found no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's summary hearing process was procedurally fair and its conclusions on mootness and prospect of success were reasonable.

The applicant, Fair Change, brought a constitutional challenge against sections 2, 3, and 5 of the Safe Streets Act, 1999, arguing they violate several Charter rights.

The court granted Fair Change public interest standing.

The court found that the deeming provisions in paragraphs 2(3)2 to 6 of the Act violate the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b), and are not saved by s. 1.

The court also found that the blanket prohibitions on solicitation in certain places under clauses 3(2)(a) to (e) violate freedom of expression and are not minimally impairing, thus not saved by s. 1.

However, the court upheld the prohibition on aggressive solicitation in s. 2(2) and the prohibition on squeegeeing in s. 3(2)(f) as justified limits on freedom of expression.

The court dismissed the challenges under ss. 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The unconstitutional provisions were declared of no force and effect.

In a discipline proceeding against a teacher found to have engaged in sexual abuse, the member brought a constitutional motion challenging the mandatory revocation provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

Prior to hearing the motion, the parties sought a ruling on the admissibility of two expert reports.

The Discipline Committee ruled that the expert reports of Dr. Anthony Doob, regarding general deterrence and mandatory minimum sentences, and Dr. Mary Louise Arnold, regarding the harms of sexual abuse in teacher-student interactions, were both admissible.

Written reasons were to follow.

This appeal involved a constitutional challenge to Ontario's COVID-19 public health measures, specifically the proof of vaccination requirement enacted by Ont.

Reg 364/20.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the provincial government had ceased enforcement and subsequently revoked the Regulation.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding no practical effect for the declaratory relief sought and that the claim for nominal damages did not cure mootness.

Concerns about judicial economy and the utility of deciding fact-specific constitutional issues in the absence of a live controversy also weighed against exercising discretion.

Vinventory Canada Inc. brought an application challenging the constitutional applicability of Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act, arguing that it was subject to federal derivative labour jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code.

The corporation, a sub-contractor providing rail yard management and automobile handling services at a Canadian Pacific Railway facility, contended its operations were an integral part of a federally regulated undertaking.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Vinventory's work was not sufficiently integral or permanently dependent on the federal undertaking to displace the presumptive provincial labour jurisdiction.

The Discipline Committee previously found that the member engaged in professional misconduct, including the sexual abuse of a student.

At the penalty hearing, the Committee applied the mandatory penalty provisions under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

The Committee ordered that the member receive an oral reprimand and directed the Registrar to immediately revoke the member's certificate of qualification and registration.

The panel remained seized to hear a constitutional challenge to the mandatory penalty provisions at a later date.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included consuming alcohol on a field trip, making inappropriate comments about rape, miscarriage, and vaginal tearing to a Grade 8 class, and sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse.

The Committee also found that the Facebook messages were of a sexual nature, constituting sexual abuse of a student under the Act.

An interim order suspending the member's certificate was issued pending the penalty phase.

The applicants brought an application challenging the constitutionality of Ontario's COVID-19 proof of vaccination requirement (Ont.

Reg. 364/20) under sections 2(a), 7, and 15 of the Charter.

The applicants argued that the regulation, which required patrons to provide proof of vaccination to enter certain businesses, violated their freedom of religion, right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and equality rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no Charter contraventions.

The court held that the regulation did not interfere with the applicants' religious beliefs, did not compel medical treatment or engage the right to security of the person, and did not discriminate based on religion or disability.

The applicants brought a Charter challenge against the public funding of Roman Catholic separate schools for non-Catholic students and high school students in Ontario.

The respondent moved to strike the application under Rule 21.01.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Supreme Court of Canada had already determined these issues in the Reference re Bill 30 decision, which held that minority education rights under section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 are immune from Charter scrutiny.

The court concluded there was no new legal issue or fundamental change in circumstances that would allow it to depart from binding precedent, rendering the application doomed to fail.

The defendant government brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff's action challenging mandatory COVID-19 vaccination laws from Ottawa to the Toronto Region.

The government sought to have the plaintiff's Charter claims heard alongside a similar application already scheduled in Toronto.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that transferring the action would result in a loss of discovery rights for the plaintiff, risk duplication of evidence, and create a risk of inconsistent verdicts between the Charter and Human Rights Code claims.

The court concluded there was no connection between the action and the Toronto Region to justify a transfer.

The applicant, an advocacy group for strippers, brought a judicial review application challenging COVID-19 regulations that temporarily closed strip clubs in Stage 2 and Stage 3 areas.

Before the application was heard, the impugned regulations were revoked and replaced, allowing strip clubs to operate with safety requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case on the merits as the live controversy had ended and there was no cogent reason to depart from the general rule against hearing moot cases.