Guy J. Pratte

Trinity Western University (TWU) applied for judicial review of the Law Society of Upper Canada's decision to deny accreditation to its proposed law school.

The Law Society denied accreditation because TWU's community covenant, which prohibits sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage, was found to be discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Law Society's decision was reasonable.

The Court held that while the decision infringed TWU's freedom of religion, the Law Society proportionately balanced this right against its statutory mandate to protect the public interest and the equality rights of its future members.

This appeal addressed federal Crown civil liability for the Minister of Justice's handling of mercy applications after a wrongful conviction.

The Court held that the mercy power was a core policy function protected by qualified immunity, and liability required bad faith or serious recklessness rather than simple fault.

The appellant did not prove that ministers acted in bad faith or that any alleged review failures caused compensable loss.

The Court also rejected additional damages, punitive damages, and claimed extrajudicial fees tied to alleged abuse of process.

Thirteen organizations and one individual brought motions for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review of the Law Society of Upper Canada's decision denying accreditation to Trinity Western University's proposed law school.

The court applied the Peel and Bedford criteria, emphasizing the need for proposed intervenors to make a useful and distinct contribution without duplicating the parties or each other.

Eight organizations were granted intervenor status, while the remaining proposed intervenors were denied due to overlapping positions or lack of a sufficiently distinct perspective.

Appeal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013 SCC 73, addressing the legal issues presented and disposing of the proceeding on the terms stated in the reasons and judgment.

Following the dismissal of the foreign tobacco defendants' jurisdictional appeals, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the appeals.

The appellants argued that costs should be capped at $100,000, asserting that the Crown treated the five appeals as one by filing a common factum.

The Court rejected this argument, finding no $100,000 ceiling exists for costs awards in the Court of Appeal.

Given the complexity, the $50 billion stakes, and the necessity of responding to five separate appeals, the Court fixed the Crown's partial indemnity costs at $237,332.50, apportioned between the BAT and RJR appellants.

Ontario sued foreign and domestic tobacco manufacturers under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009 to recover health care costs.

Six foreign defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

The foreign defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory claim was analogous to a tort committed in Ontario, establishing a presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's findings that Ontario established a good arguable case and affirmed the costs award.

The Supreme Court considered whether provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec limiting family patrimony, compensatory allowance, partnership of acquests, and spousal support to married and civil union spouses infringed s. 15(1) of the Charter by excluding de facto spouses.

A 5-4 majority on s. 15(1) found the exclusion violated equality rights based on marital status.

However, the Chief Justice found the infringement justified under s. 1, joining the four judges who found no s. 15(1) violation, resulting in a 5-4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the impugned provisions.

The dissent would have struck down some or all of the provisions as unjustified discrimination against de facto spouses.

Following the successful appeal by the defendant overturning the certification of a proposed class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $300,000.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued that no costs or a maximum of $50,000 should be awarded, citing the novel legal issues and public interest nature of the case.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the novel points of law and access to justice considerations under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but held that the Act does not insulate representative plaintiffs from adverse costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $60,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant railway company misclassified first line supervisors as managerial employees to avoid paying overtime under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge certified the action but significantly redrafted the common issues, rejecting the plaintiff's proposed misclassification issue due to a lack of commonality.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge correctly rejected the misclassification issue because individualized assessments of job duties were required.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in certifying a reframed common issue about the minimum requirements for managerial status, as it suffered from the same lack of commonality.

The certification order was set aside.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.

Parents challenged a school board refusal to exempt their children from Quebec's mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture course, alleging violations of religious freedom and improper external influence.

The Court held that sincere belief alone is insufficient, and objective proof of interference is required.

On this record, the parents failed to prove the program infringed freedom of religion, and the refusal to exempt was upheld.

The Crown brought an action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act against several domestic and foreign tobacco companies, claiming $50 billion for health care costs related to tobacco disease.

Six foreign defendants brought motions to set aside service ex juris and stay or dismiss the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Crown had established a good arguable case that the foreign defendants conspired and acted in concert to commit tobacco-related wrongs, establishing a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the respondent's summary judgment motion, the court determined the costs of the proceedings.

The appellants were awarded fixed costs for the appeal and partial indemnity costs in the cause for the motion.

The fourth parties were also awarded fixed costs for the appeal, while no costs were ordered for or against the third parties.

The liquidator of a credit union made a claim under a fidelity insurance bond for losses caused by the dishonest conduct of its general manager and other employees.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the credit union.

The insurers appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the uncontested facts supported a finding of direct loss resulting from dishonest acts, there were genuine issues for trial regarding whether the acts constituted a single scheme, and whether the bond's termination and notice conditions applied.

The appellants (CNR) insured a custom-built tunnel boring machine under an 'all risks' policy that excluded the cost of making good 'faulty or improper design'.

During construction, the machine failed due to excess differential deflection, allowing dirt to penetrate the main bearing and causing significant delay and repair costs.

The insurers denied coverage based on the design exclusion.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the exclusion did not apply because the design was state-of-the-art and accommodated all foreseeable risks at the time it was finalized.

The Court concluded that a design is not 'faulty or improper' simply because it fails to withstand all foreseeable risks, provided it meets the highest engineering standards of the day.

The Law Society of Upper Canada appealed a decision of its Appeal Panel restoring the membership of a former judge who had resigned following findings of serious sexual misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appeal Panel's findings that the Hearing Panel erred in applying the enhanced 'Bernstein' standard of proof and in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to impose conditions on a restored licence.

The Court confirmed that the standard of proof for restoration is a simple balance of probabilities, the burden of proof lies on the applicant, and the Law Society has broad jurisdiction to impose conditions on a restored licence to protect the public interest.

The respondent filed multiple complaints with the Barreau du Québec regarding the conduct of a lawyer who was harassing her through the courts.

Despite the lawyer's extensive disciplinary record and a finding of incompetence, the Barreau delayed taking action for over a year.

The respondent sued the Barreau for damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Barreau's gross carelessness and serious negligence in handling the complaints amounted to bad faith, precluding it from relying on the statutory immunity provided by s. 193 of the Professional Code.

The Barreau was found civilly liable and ordered to pay moral damages.

The appellants, members of a dairy cooperative, appealed a decision declaring that the cooperative was not required to include milk sold via export contracts when calculating patronage returns under s. 55(5) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.

The Court of Appeal applied a contextual approach to statutory interpretation, finding that the term 'deliver' in s. 55(5) requires a transfer of title.

Because export contracts allow producers to direct milk to entities other than the cooperative without transferring title to the marketing board, the statutory presumption of a direct business link does not apply.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant association sought judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee refusing to expand a special milk class permit program to include cheese used in fresh pizzas.

The applicant argued the decision was administrative and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction to hear the application but dismissed it on the merits.

The court found the Committee's decision was legislative and policy-oriented, not administrative, and therefore did not attract a duty of procedural fairness.

The court concluded the applicant was given sufficient opportunity to make its views known and no breach of fairness occurred.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action for payment for installing a subsurface drainage system and awarding damages on the respondent's counterclaim for crop losses due to improper drainage.

The trial judge found the system inadequate due to soil conditions, the filter used, and installation in wet conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The Court also upheld the damages award, noting the limitation of liability clause was not incorporated into the agreement or pleaded.