Geetha Philipupillai

The defendant, Ontario, brought a motion to defer filing its statement of defence in a proposed class proceeding concerning the alleged maltreatment of inmates at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

Ontario argued that exceptional circumstances existed, including the need to await an appellate decision in a related criminal matter and to investigate recent amendments to the statement of claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were not exceptional and that requiring the statement of defence would advance the litigation, frame the issues for certification, and serve the public interest in timely justice.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision of Brownstone J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not provide costs outlines, the court made no order as to costs.

The court considered cross-applications between Michelle Goldstein Zaldin and Seymour Goldstein regarding the enforcement of a shotgun clause in a shareholders’ agreement for their jointly owned insurance and investment businesses.

The court found that a binding agreement was reached for Ms. Zaldin to purchase Mr. Goldstein’s shares, and that Mr. Goldstein’s failure to obtain necessary regulatory approvals constituted a breach that prevented closing.

The court granted specific performance in favour of Ms. Zaldin, declined to imply additional terms into the agreement, and awarded her costs.

The plaintiff brought a certified class proceeding against the Province of Ontario regarding the Centre of Forensic Sciences' (CFS) retention of DNA profiles obtained from voluntarily provided reference samples.

The class members had signed consent forms stating that electronic data related to their samples would be permanently removed if they were excluded as a match to a crime scene.

The court found that the CFS's practice of merely anonymizing, rather than permanently removing, the DNA profiles vitiated the class members' consent.

This resulted in an unreasonable search and continued seizure in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court awarded aggregate Charter damages of $1,000 per class member ($7,267,000 total) for vindication and deterrence, but dismissed the claims for intrusion upon seclusion and punitive damages, finding the CFS acted in good faith.

The plaintiff, Jean-Marie Dixon, sought to conduct Rule 39.03 examinations of three witnesses (Registrar of HRTO, former ALOC president, and Crown counsel) in preparation for a jurisdiction motion brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (HMK).

HMK, the Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC), and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) each moved to quash the respective summonses.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's preliminary motion to strike portions of HMK's material.

The court granted all motions to quash, finding that the evidence sought was not relevant to the jurisdiction motion, was protected by statutory privilege (for HRTO Registrar) or solicitor-client privilege (for Crown counsel), or constituted an abuse of process as a fishing expedition for the underlying claim's merits.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a workplace investigation into an incident between a Black grievor and a white colleague.

While the arbitrator found the investigation procedurally flawed, he dismissed the claim that it was tainted by anti-Black racism or unconscious bias.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the proper articulation of the test for prima facie discrimination is a question of central importance subject to a correctness standard of review.

The court held that the arbitrator misapprehended the test by requiring racism to be the 'dominant possibility' and by misapplying the shifting evidential burdens.

The discrimination claim was remitted to the arbitrator.

The plaintiff and third-party father sued the defendant sons for repayment of alleged oral loans totaling $248,000 used to purchase a condominium.

The sons counterclaimed for unpaid wages, alleging the payments were actually 'banked' wages from their employment at the father's companies, and sought punitive damages for the father's conduct.

The court dismissed the loan claims, finding the payments were indeed banked wages.

The court allowed the sons' counterclaim for unpaid wages, finding the father personally liable as a common employer.

The court also awarded $75,000 in punitive damages to each son due to the father's reprehensible conduct, including withholding wages, spoliation of employment records, and maintaining a false narrative throughout the litigation.

This appeal concerned a proposed class action by inmates and their families against Bell Canada and the Ontario government regarding allegedly unreasonable and unconscionable collect call rates from correctional facilities.

The motion judge had dismissed claims for an ultra vires tax and a Telecommunications Act breach, and permanently stayed other claims (unjust enrichment, consumer protection, unconscionable contracts, breach of fiduciary duty), deferring to the CRTC's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the ultra vires tax claim, finding the commissions paid to Ontario were proprietary/contractual charges, not taxes.

However, the Court substituted the permanent stay with a temporary stay for the remaining claims.

This was to allow the CRTC to first determine whether it had forborne from regulating these specific rates and, if not, to adjudicate their reasonableness, ensuring access to justice for the appellants if the CRTC declined jurisdiction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated October 19, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding party groups.

The plaintiff, Phong Lam, sued defendants Ken Neumann and Laura Chehadi Jaja for $15 million, alleging failures in union representation and wrongful termination related to his employment.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the action on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the plaintiff's action without leave to amend, finding that the claims fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, that an identical proceeding was pending before the HRTO, and that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the private defendants under the Charter or Criminal Code, nor personal liability for an employee acting within the scope of employment.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action on behalf of prisoners and their families, alleging that Bell Canada and Ontario charged unconscionable rates for collect calls from provincial correctional facilities.

The plaintiffs sought certification, while the defendants brought cross-motions to stay the action, arguing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice struck the plaintiffs' claims for an ultra vires tax and breach of the Telecommunications Act, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

The court permanently stayed the remaining claims, concluding that the pith and substance of the dispute concerned telecommunications rates, which fall squarely within the specialized jurisdiction and remedial authority of the CRTC.

The plaintiff, EllisDon Residential Inc., sought an injunction against Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd. to resume work and against Defendant Unions for inducing breach of contract and interfering with economic relations.

The defendants argued the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

The court applied the Weber test, finding the essential character of the dispute related to labour relations and the interpretation of collective agreements, falling within the OLRB's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the injunction motion and stayed the action, deferring to the OLRB.

The plaintiff construction manager sought an urgent hearing for an injunction to prevent the defendant union from allegedly intimidating a masonry contractor's employees into refusing to work.

The developer, Westbank, sought and was granted intervenor status.

The court declined to schedule the injunction motion on an urgent basis, finding that the delay in bringing the action was strategic and the alleged urgency was self-induced.

The parties were directed to schedule a regular motion date.

In a proposed class action regarding the rates charged for collect calls made by prisoners in Ontario correctional facilities, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by an employee of the defendant telecommunications company.

The plaintiffs argued the affiant was improperly giving expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the affiant was providing factual evidence regarding the regulatory framework and the operation of the telephone system, not expert opinion.

Following a successful motion for an urgent interlocutory injunction against picketing union members, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $110,000.

The defendants argued for no or nominal costs, citing labour injunction jurisprudence.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,000 plus disbursements, finding that while the picketers' conduct was aggressive and crossed the line, it did not warrant the judicial disapproval reflected in substantial indemnity costs.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed the "Student Choice Initiative" framework, which mandated an opt-out system for non-essential student ancillary fees at Ontario colleges and universities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the framework was unlawful.

For colleges, the framework conflicted with section 7 of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, which protects student governing bodies' normal activities.

For universities, the framework interfered with their statutory self-governance and institutional autonomy, a fundamental principle implicit in their establishing Acts.

The court clarified that the Minister's action was an exercise of executive authority, not prerogative power, and must yield to conflicting legislation.

The self-represented plaintiff, citing a disability, requested several accommodations to proceed with her action, including the recusal of the case management judge, the appointment of an out-of-province judge, and state-funded legal counsel.

The defendants argued these requests were substantive remedies requiring a formal motion.

The case management judge agreed, finding that the requested accommodations could not be granted informally and directed the plaintiff to bring a formal motion for recusal, setting a timetable for the exchange of materials.

The self-represented plaintiff requested an adjournment of a scheduled case conference, submitting a brief medical note stating she was unable to attend court proceedings due to an ongoing disability.

The defendants opposed an indefinite abeyance, arguing the note lacked details on prognosis or necessary accommodations.

The court adjourned the case conference for a short period, directing the plaintiff to provide more extensive medical evidence of her disability and to propose reasonable accommodations, noting that the litigation could not be delayed indefinitely.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, commenced an action alleging anti-Black discrimination in the workplace.

The defendants sought to schedule a case conference to advance their motion to strike the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiff resisted scheduling the case conference, asserting she was unable to proceed due to a disability caused by the defendants' conduct.

The case management judge held that while the court must accommodate litigants with disabilities, such accommodation does not extend to indefinite delays that prejudice the defendants' right to have the action determined.

The court scheduled a case conference and directed the plaintiff to consider her position regarding accommodation or retaining counsel.