Eric Wagner

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing their action regarding a property sale.

The appellants challenged the sale on multiple grounds, including that procedures in a manual were not followed, that the motion judge was biased, that no auction occurred, and that the sale was improvident.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court judgment, holding that the manual procedures did not have the force of law, the bias argument lacked merit, the motion judge properly accepted evidence that the auction occurred, and the appellants had adequate notice and failed to provide credible evidence of impropriety.

The applicant sought a retroactive Rowbotham order to stay charges unless the Attorney General paid for legal fees incurred during a completed preliminary hearing.

The applicant's initial Legal Aid certificate expired due to oversight, and a subsequent application was denied due to increased income.

While the Crown agreed to fund counsel for the upcoming trial, it refused to cover the preliminary hearing costs.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a retroactive Rowbotham order, as the applicant's fair trial rights for the preliminary hearing were not in jeopardy, having been represented by counsel throughout.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, former employees of an automobile dealership, sued police and others for damages after a criminal investigation led to the dealership's closure and their job loss.

The defendants moved for an order striking out the plaintiffs’ Statements of Claim.

The court dismissed the negligent investigation claim, finding no private law duty of care owed by police to employees of a suspect.

It granted leave to amend for civil conspiracy and misfeasance in public office claims, but struck other intentional tort claims without leave.

The appellant appealed an order of the Master that allowed some amendments to its statement of claim but disallowed others on the basis that they advanced new causes of action barred by the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the disallowed amendments arose out of the same factual matrix as the original claim and merely clarified or expanded upon the existing allegations.

The court emphasized that pleadings should be read generously and amendments presumptively allowed unless they cause non-compensable prejudice or advance a completely separate claim.

The former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario applied under subsection 700(2) of the Criminal Code to be excused from attending trial as a witness pursuant to a subpoena issued by the defendant.

The defendant alleged that the former Lieutenant Governor had originated the criminal charges against him and possessed material evidence.

The court found that the defendant's assertions were entirely speculative and unsupported, contradicted by credible Crown evidence.

The former Lieutenant Governor's only involvement was appearing as a carbon copy recipient on the letters in question.

The application to be excused from the subpoena was granted.

The moving party requested that the respondent's statement of claim be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The respondent sued the moving party for damages arising from an allegedly negligent investigation.

The court found that most of the claims were barred by the statutory immunity provided to the moving party under section 142 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The remaining allegations of malice and bias were bald statements unsupported by facts.

The court struck the statement of claim.

The plaintiff sued the police and the Crown for injuries sustained when he was bitten by a police dog during his arrest.

The plaintiff had fled from a vehicle and hidden in tall grass, prompting the police to deploy a canine unit.

The dog located the plaintiff and bit him, following its 'bite and hold' training.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the police had reasonable grounds to use the dog and that the 'bite and hold' policy was not unreasonable.

The court assessed the plaintiff's general damages at $40,000 in the alternative.

The applicant, facing serious criminal charges, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

Legal Aid was denied because the applicant provided misleading financial information, including a claim that he earned $10,000 per week.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of his indigence and could not rely on a Legal Aid refusal that he caused through his own misleading conduct.

The dismissal was without prejudice to bringing a more fulsome application.

The defendant public authority moved for summary judgment dismissing a long-running action on the basis that the claims were barred by the six-month limitation period in s. 7(1) of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

Applying the summary judgment framework from Hryniak and the public/private power analysis from Des Champs, the court held the record did not permit a confident determination that the impugned conduct correlated sufficiently with the exercise of a public duty or authority.

The evidentiary record suggested the defendant was acting both as regulator and as a commercial actor dealing with potential lessors of Crown near-shore oil rights.

Summary judgment was refused, a mini-trial was declined, and the action was directed to proceed to trial expeditiously.

The applicant, a non-custodial parent, filed a human rights application on behalf of his minor daughter against the Office of the Children's Lawyer and its investigator, alleging wrongful actions during a family court custody dispute.

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked standing to act as a litigation guardian because he had a personal interest in the outcome of the litigation and was in a conflict of interest with his daughter's interests regarding custody.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown and Ontario First Nations entered into a revenue sharing agreement requiring the Crown to appoint a First Nations representative to the board of directors of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).

When no appointment was made, First Nations sought arbitration.

The Crown and OLG moved to strike the claim, arguing the appointment was protected by Crown prerogative and non-justiciable.

The arbitration panel dismissed the motion and also allowed First Nations to withdraw its claim against OLG.

The Crown and OLG appealed both decisions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Crown prerogative could not be used to avoid a declaration that a contract had been breached, and that OLG was not a necessary party to the arbitration.

The plaintiff brought a Rule 30.10 motion seeking production of portions of a Special Investigations Unit investigation file arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a police vehicle.

Relevance of the requested materials was conceded, but the Attorney General on behalf of the SIU opposed disclosure on the basis of witness confidentiality and the exceptional nature of non-party production.

The court reviewed the sealed SIU materials and applied the fairness test under Rule 30.10, balancing confidentiality interests against the plaintiff’s ability to fairly prepare for trial on the contested issue of liability.

Because the police materials already produced to the plaintiff were heavily redacted and prevented effective investigation and contact with a key civilian witness, the court found it would be unfair for the plaintiff to proceed without certain SIU documents.

The court ordered production of specific investigator summaries and notes relating to officer witnesses and one civilian witness but declined to order production of audio recordings and other investigative materials.

The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities granted funds to a First Nations limited partnership to provide skills training.

The partnership applied to dissolve and an interim receiver was appointed.

The application judge found that the unspent grant moneys were subject to a Quistclose trust for the Ministry's benefit and ordered the receiver to return them.

The Court of Appeal allowed the receiver's appeal, finding that the funding agreement characterized unused funds as a debt, not a trust, and gave the partnership significant discretion to spend the funds.

Therefore, the requirements for a Quistclose trust were not met and the funds were available for distribution in the receivership.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents from a non‑party, the Special Investigations Unit, arising from an investigation into a collision between an e‑bicycle and a police vehicle.

The court reviewed the high threshold governing non‑party production, including the requirements that the documents be relevant to a material issue and that it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without them.

While relevance was established, the court held that most requested documents should not be produced because equivalent witness information had already been obtained from police sources and the public interest in maintaining SIU witness confidentiality outweighed disclosure.

However, limited disclosure was ordered where fairness required it, including the statement of a deceased witness, the statement of the police officer defendant, related follow‑up reports, and redacted investigator notes.

The balance of the requested documents was not ordered produced.

The plaintiff, a minor who suffered severe abuse by his biological parents, brought a civil action against various parties, including the police and CAS, alleging negligence in failing to protect him.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 seeking production of the complete Crown Brief from the Ministry of the Attorney General and the police.

The court dismissed the motion against the Crown, noting the police already possessed the brief.

The court found the motion against the police was improperly brought under Rule 30.10 as they were parties, but proceeded to determine relevance under Rule 30.06.

The court held that the contents of the Crown Brief were relevant to what the police knew or ought to have known prior to the final assault, and declared the material producible.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) finding its interactive digital media product ineligible for a certificate.

The OMDC determined the primary purpose of the applicant's website was marketing and promotion, rather than to educate, inform, or entertain.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the decision, finding it fell within the OMDC's specialized expertise.

The court also dismissed the applicant's argument that the OMDC breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose a 2004 opinion, noting the administrative nature of the decision and the extensive prior communications between the parties.

The moving parties sought a stay of an arbitration proceeding pending appeals from arbitration panel decisions concerning jurisdiction and party participation.

The dispute arose from an agreement granting the respondent First Nations partnership a right to have a nominee appointed to the board of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

The moving parties argued the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction due to the Crown prerogative over appointments and that the exclusion of the corporation from the arbitration violated natural justice.

Applying the tripartite test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court found serious issues on appeal regarding jurisdiction, irreparable harm to the public interest if arbitration proceeded prematurely, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The court therefore stayed the arbitration pending determination of the appeals.