Emtiaz Bala

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal refusing to recuse its adjudicators for alleged bias.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was an abuse of process because the tribunal proceedings were ongoing.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative proceeding, the court dismissed the application as patently premature.

The applicants sought mandamus compelling the SIU Director to lay a murder charge against a subject officer following a fatal police shooting, and also sought a declaration that the decision not to charge was tainted by anti-black racism.

The court held that, under s. 32 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, the Director's determination of whether reasonable grounds exist includes both subjective and objective components and permits consideration of all reliable information, including an obvious self-defence issue.

The Director did not err by considering self defence, and mandamus could not be used to force a particular charging result absent jurisdictional error, bad faith, discrimination, or failure to consider a highly relevant factor.

The court found no evidence that race motivated either the officer's conduct or the Director's decision.

Mandamus was also unavailable because a private prosecution under s. 504 of the Criminal Code provided an adequate alternative remedy.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario's (FSRA) decision to investigate them, issue a summons, and issue a Notice of Proposal regarding alleged contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for being premature, as there were ongoing proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the administrative process must run its course and that the statutory scheme provided an adequate alternative remedy through a de novo hearing before the tribunal.

The Durham Regional Police Service (Applicant) sought to prohibit the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (Commission) from disclosing two workplace investigation reports (Shearer Reports), claiming they were privileged.

The Commission, along with the Durham Regional Police Service Association (Intervenor), opposed these restrictions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Shearer Report 1 was not privileged, and while Shearer Report 2's privilege was uncertain (as it was not produced for review), any privilege over either report had been waived or lost due to prior disclosures.

The court ordered the reports to be produced to the Commission without restriction, emphasizing the public interest in disclosure to protect employees from harassment and a toxic workplace, and noting the Commission's statutory obligations of confidentiality.

The applicant delivered a subpoena seeking documents from the respondent.

The respondent objected to producing certain documents, claiming lawyer-client privilege.

The applicant brought an application by way of stated case under s. 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 to determine whether the documents are producible or privileged.

The court issued procedural directions, including a schedule for evidence, cross-examinations, and factums, and directed that the matter be heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning the renewal of a vendor and builder licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Attorney General sought to make submissions on the proper interpretation of the 'integrity and honesty' provision, arguing it would impact similar provisions in numerous other statutes.

The court found that the Attorney General met the test for intervention, noting the public interest and the Attorney General's unique position to assist the court on broader statutory implications.

The motion was granted on consent, subject to conditions.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a condition attached to their liquor and cannabis licences that prohibited the former owner from being employed in any capacity.

The Registrar imposed the condition under the Risk Based Licensing regime without disclosing the underlying risk assessment summary or providing particulars of the alleged infractions.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Registrar breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate notice and disclosure, which prevented the applicants from knowing the case they had to meet.

The decisions were quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

At a case conference, the plaintiffs requested copies of all media documents listed in Schedule A of the defendants' Affidavit of Documents.

The defendants argued that the cost of reviewing, redacting, and copying the files would be prohibitive and offered inspection instead.

The court held that the defendants complied with Rule 30.04 by offering inspection and ordered that the plaintiffs' counsel may inspect the documents at the Crown's offices.

The court also renewed an order prohibiting the recording and posting of discovery proceedings on social media.

The applicant school board sought judicial review to quash clauses 10(2)(i) and (ii) of O. Reg. 20/98 under the Education Act as ultra vires.

The impugned regulations restrict the availability of education development charges (EDCs) to circumstances where a school board does not have board-wide surplus capacity.

The applicant argued this undermined the purpose of the EDC regime, which is to ensure growth pays for growth.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulations were consistent with the statutory grant of authority and the broader scheme of the Education Act, which includes strict financial oversight and efficient use of education funds.

The plaintiff towing company sought to amend its Statement of Claim to add claims for an interim and permanent mandatory order compelling the Ontario Provincial Police to adhere to a 'First On Scene' tow policy.

The Crown opposed the amendments, arguing that statutory provisions prohibit injunctive and mandatory relief against the Crown.

The Master confirmed jurisdiction to assess the legal tenability of proposed pleadings and held that mandatory orders are a form of injunctive relief prohibited against the Crown.

The Master denied the amendments seeking mandatory orders but permitted amendments pleading irreparable harm and intimidation, as they were tenable claims relevant to damages.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed procedural issues concerning examinations for discovery scheduled for a three-week period.

Key issues included confirming the discovery schedule for defendants, determining the order of examination between co-plaintiffs, and allocating discovery costs.

The court set the discovery schedule, ordered one plaintiff's counsel to examine witnesses first due to preparedness, and denied a request for an advance list of questions.

Costs were apportioned 3/4 to one plaintiff's clients and 1/4 to the self-represented plaintiff.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing her application for mandamus and certiorari challenging the Director of the Special Investigations Unit's decision not to lay criminal charges against police officers involved in a shooting incident.

The application judge had dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding it should be heard by the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act rather than by a single Superior Court judge under the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that applications involving criminal matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code, not provincial legislation, and must be heard by a single Superior Court judge under the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant in a wrongful conviction action, brought a motion to appoint a non-lawyer with a history as a vexatious litigant as an amicus curiae to assist him during examinations for discovery.

The Crown defendants brought a cross-motion to exclude the non-lawyer from attending further discoveries due to his disruptive conduct.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the non-lawyer did not meet the criteria for an amicus curiae and that his appointment would violate the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Law Society Act.

The court granted the Crown defendants' motion, barring the non-lawyer from attending further discoveries due to his history of disruptive behaviour and failure to comply with previous court directions.

The court also permitted the plaintiff to attend the discoveries of the companion action plaintiffs by video or telephone.

The applicant, an innocent bystander injured during a police shooting, sought an order of mandamus to compel the Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to conduct a proper investigation and lay charges against the officers.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction, arguing the matter should be heard by the Divisional Court.

The Superior Court of Justice held that because the SIU is a creation of a provincial statute (the Police Services Act), the application must proceed by way of judicial review before the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant, Susan Zreik, brought two applications: one seeking extraordinary remedies (mandamus and certiorari) and declaratory relief against the SIU Director, and another raising constitutional issues involving the Attorney General of Canada.

This endorsement addresses preliminary jurisdictional arguments, with the Attorney General of Ontario and the SIU Director contending the Divisional Court is the proper forum for Application #1, and the Attorney General of Canada disputing its status as a party in Application #2.

The court adjourned the jurisdictional arguments to a case management meeting, directing the parties to file supplementary materials addressing compliance with criminal rules for extraordinary remedies and jurisdictional challenges for constitutional issues.

The Ministry of the Attorney General sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order directing the disclosure of a draft prosecutorial guideline concerning HIV exposure.

The Commissioner found that while the draft guideline originated in solicitor-client privilege, the privilege was waived when an Assistant Crown Attorney shared it with a municipal public health manager.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Commissioner reasonably concluded the privilege was waived because the Ministry and the public health authority did not share a sufficient common interest.

The plaintiff sought leave to further amend his statement of claim to include allegations of conspiracy against the police and Crown attorneys regarding his arrests during a native protest.

The defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred.

The court found that while the proposed amendments met the test for particularity, they attempted to resurrect previously struck allegations from December 2006 and were therefore statute-barred.

The court struck the conspiracy paragraphs without leave to amend, but allowed other unchallenged amendments.

Formerly convicted individuals brought a motion to set aside a Registrar’s administrative dismissal under Rule 48 after their civil actions for malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction had been dismissed for delay.

The court applied the four-factor framework from Reid v Dow Corning Corp, examining explanation for litigation delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay adequately explained, largely attributable to document production issues and changes in counsel, and concluded that counsel’s failure to diarize the set-down date constituted inadvertence rather than deliberate delay.

The defendants failed to establish actual prejudice, despite the age of the underlying events.

Applying a contextual approach and considering amendments to Rule 48.14, the court held that justice required permitting the plaintiffs to proceed.

Two Ottawa police officers were charged with assault following an SIU investigation and were issued summonses to attend SIU headquarters in Mississauga for fingerprinting.

The officers brought an application for certiorari to quash the summonses, arguing that the Crown's subsequent election to proceed summarily invalidated the summonses, that the travel requirement breached procedural fairness, and that it constituted an unreasonable search under section 8 of the Charter.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown's election did not retroactively invalidate the Justice of the Peace's jurisdiction, the travel requirement was a reasonable policy to ensure SIU independence and operational readiness, and the inconvenience of travel did not render the fingerprinting an unreasonable search.

The plaintiffs, who were arrested multiple times during counter-protests at the Caledonia native occupation, brought a motion to amend their statements of claim to add new allegations of wrongful arrest, Charter violations, conspiracy, and harassment.

The defendant Crown brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the amended claims.

The court held that several of the new claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as they constituted separate events rather than a continuing tort.

The court also struck the conspiracy and harassment claims for lack of particulars, but granted leave to amend.

The Crown's motion to strike the defamation claim was dismissed, as the court found the impugned remarks were capable of referring to the plaintiff despite not naming him specifically.