Frederick Stephen Fischer

The Ontario legislature enacted the Better Local Government Act, 2018, which reduced Toronto City Council from 47 to 25 councillors and changed ward boundaries in the middle of a municipal election campaign.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing it violated section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (freedom of expression) and unwritten constitutional principles.

The application judge found the Act violated section 2(b) and allowed the application.

On appeal, the majority (D.M. Miller J.A., with Tulloch and Harvison Young JJ.A. concurring) allowed the appeal and upheld the Act as constitutional.

The majority held that section 2(b) does not guarantee effective expression, does not require government to maintain platforms for expression, and does not incorporate the right to vote from section 3 of the Charter.

The majority also rejected arguments based on unwritten constitutional principles and jurisdictional limits in section 92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

MacPherson J.A. (with Nordheimer J.A. concurring) dissented, finding the Act infringed section 2(b) by interfering with freedom of expression during an active election and that the infringement could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to restrain the Toronto Police Services Board from conducting further business, alleging failures in its statutory duties and a loss of public confidence.

The Board cross-moved to strike the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court heard the applicant's interim injunction motion and dismissed it, finding that the relief sought was not justiciable as it would improperly intrude on the supervisory responsibilities of the legislature and other bodies.

The court also determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the Board continuing its statutory functions due to the compelling public interest in the provision of adequate police services.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the Board.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out their negligence claim against the Toronto Police Services Board without leave to amend.

The appellants alleged the police owed them a duty of care in investigating a crime affecting their family.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the precedent in Wellington v. Ontario established that police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime and their families in relation to police investigations.

The court rejected the appellants' arguments that their case was distinguishable based on their lack of certain victim remedies or their assistance to police in the investigation.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement between the appellant and the respondents.

The settlement released the respondents from all causes of action and claims for damages arising from allegations in action CV-15-541151, with the respondents agreeing not to seek costs.

The appellant contended that she intended to release the respondents from a different, identical action (CV-15-540944) and that the motion judge misapprehended her evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge's findings were supported by the record and that there was no evidence of misrepresentation or incapacity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the order of the Superior Court of Justice striking his statement of claim without leave to amend.

The lower court judge found that the statement of claim did not adhere to the rules of pleading and was frivolous and vexatious, and that the claim was fatally flawed such that it could not be remedied by granting leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the Applicant's request for leave to commence an action against the Respondents.

The court assessed the costs payable by the Applicant to the successful Respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the reasonableness of two separate sets of costs, duplication of legal work by multiple lawyers of similar call years, and the hourly rates and disbursements claimed.

The court reduced the costs sought by Centennial College and the individual Respondents due to concerns about duplication and excessive disbursements, while approving the costs sought by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Applicant, a vexatious litigant, was ordered to pay costs, and his approval of the costs order's form and content was waived.