Hartley Morris Schwartz

This endorsement addresses motions by the Tamil Rights Group (TRG) and the Tamil Coalition (National Council of Canadian Tamils, Canadian Tamil Academy, Canadian Tamil Youth Alliance) to intervene as parties or friends of the court in two joined applications.

The original applicants are challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, alleging it is ultra vires and violates Charter rights.

The court granted intervener status as parties to TRG and the Tamil Coalition, finding their contributions useful for a balanced factual record, particularly given the applicants' factual assertions about the Act's basis.

The court imposed specific limitations on the interveners' participation to avoid undue delay or prejudice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario partially allowed an appeal by the family of a deceased First Nations child, Brody Meekis, who died of strep throat following an allegedly flawed coronial investigation.

The family's civil claim, which included allegations of misfeasance in public office, negligent supervision, and Charter s. 15 discrimination, had been entirely struck by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal reinstated the misfeasance in public office and Charter claims, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court clarified that discriminatory conduct, even within discretionary powers, can constitute unlawful action for misfeasance, and that adverse impact discrimination under s. 15 of the Charter can arise from the application of seemingly neutral laws that disproportionately disadvantage protected groups.

The claim for negligent supervision remained struck.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision finding that frequent lockdowns at Maplehurst Correctional Complex violated the Charter rights of two remanded inmates under section 12 (cruel and unusual treatment).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge had significantly overstated the frequency, duration, and impact of lockdowns affecting the respondents.

The court concluded that while lockdowns occurred more frequently than ideal, they did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual treatment.

The court also found procedural unfairness in the award of damages without notice to the parties and rejected alternative arguments based on sections 7 and 10(c) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming her involuntary psychiatric admission.

She sought a declaration that a forced injection of anti-psychotic medication violated her Charter rights and requested rescission of her detention certificate as a remedy.

The central issue was whether the Board has jurisdiction to grant remedies under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board does not have s. 24(1) Charter jurisdiction, despite having authority to decide questions of law.

The court found that the legislature clearly intended to exclude Charter remedies from the Board's jurisdiction based on the removal of s. 52(1) jurisdiction, strict statutory timelines, limited remedial powers, composition of the Board, and the availability of Superior Court appeals.

The Crown brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's proceedings, which were commenced by a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing they were premature and brought in the wrong court.

The applicant sought various remedies including Charter damages, exclusion of evidence, and judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court agreed with the Crown, finding the application premature as the Licence Appeal Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Charter issues and the applicant had not exhausted administrative remedies.

The application was dismissed without prejudice, advising the applicant to complete the tribunal process and then, if necessary, pursue remedies before the Divisional Court.

The applicant, Liliana Di Cienzo, challenged the constitutionality of a provincial regulation under rule 14.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it violated her Charter rights.

The respondent, Attorney General of Ontario, moved to transfer the application to the Divisional Court, asserting that constitutional challenges to regulations fall under judicial review and the Divisional Court's exclusive jurisdiction.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, holding that it has jurisdiction to hear rule 14.05 applications for declarations challenging the constitutional validity of subordinate legislation, particularly when the challenge is not to the statutory power to make the regulation (ultra vires) but to the regulation itself for Charter non-compliance.

The court emphasized the procedural advantages of the Superior Court for such applications, including the ability to direct a trial of an issue if facts are disputed.

The applicant, incarcerated and self-represented, brought a summary application seeking constitutional declarations and $2 million in damages against the Crown, alleging violations related to frequent lockdowns, inadequate medical and legal assistance, and denial of religious freedoms at Toronto South Detention Centre.

The Crown moved to convert the application to an action, arguing that the complexity, anticipated credibility issues, and volume of evidence necessitated a full trial process with documentary and oral discoveries.

The court granted the Crown's motion, converting the application to an action, finding that a structured action process would be fairer, more affordable, and ultimately more efficient given the substantial damages claimed and the applicant's detailed rebuttal to the Crown's anticipated evidence.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Toronto South Detention Centre were removed as respondents.

The applicants initiated a constitutional challenge to sections of the Children’s Law Reform Act and Vital Statistics Act concerning parental recognition for LGBTQ parents.

The respondent failed to file an Answer within the 30-day period and subsequently brought motions for an open-ended extension and directions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion.

The court dismissed all motions but, recognizing the complexity and importance of the constitutional issues, granted the respondent an extension to file an Answer and set a timetable for the litigation.

The respondent was sanctioned with $2,000 in costs for its unreasonable procedural conduct in delaying the filing of its motion for extension.

A self-represented applicant sought costs against a provincial court judge personally after successfully obtaining relief relating to the judge’s refusal to remove him as counsel during a criminal trial.

The Superior Court considered whether costs could be awarded against the judge and whether the Crown should receive costs against the applicant.

The court held that judges enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for acts performed in their judicial capacity under s. 82 of the Courts of Justice Act, barring any costs award against the judge.

The court also declined to award costs to the Crown against the applicant despite concerns about the merit of the motion.

Both costs requests were dismissed.