Ian Scott

Following a successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $230,000, arguing that the plaintiff's unproven allegations of fraud justified an elevated award.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs of approximately $39,000.

The court agreed that unproven fraud allegations warrant higher costs, but found the defendants' claim excessive, particularly the $40,000 spent preparing brief costs submissions.

Costs were fixed at $200,000 all-inclusive.

The four applicants, who were convicted of various offences including participating in a criminal organization, applied for the appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for their appeals.

The Crown conceded the applicants lacked sufficient means but argued their proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The court found that only one applicant, Ms. Neeranjan, had an arguable ground of appeal regarding her conviction for participating in a criminal organization.

Her application was allowed, while the applications of the other three were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's decision or the summary conviction appeal decision, holding that the evidence supported the lawful investigative detention of the appellant.

The court noted there was no lawful basis for interference, particularly given the trial judge's rejection of the defence evidence.

The sentence appeal was not pursued.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for driving offences arising from a serious collision.

He argued issues related to bolus drinking, a discrepancy in the time of the collision, and a violation of his right to be present under s. 650 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly addressed bolus drinking and that the appellant's absence when written reasons were delivered did not violate s. 650.

Leave to appeal the sentence was refused due to the appellant's serious driving record and the severity of the collision.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for an offence involving the theft of jewellery and the alleged use of an imitation gun.

He argued the trial judge failed to distinguish between credibility and reliability, ignored his statement to police, and that the Crown's cross-examination was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and that, while there were improprieties in the cross-examination, they did not destroy the appearance of a fair trial in a judge-alone proceeding.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations that the appellant engaged in an inappropriate relationship and sexual harassment with a 16-year-old girl while off duty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings of credibility, concluding that the standard of clear and convincing evidence was met.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding it consistent with prior cases involving similar off-duty misconduct.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal or resignation.

The conviction stemmed from allegations that the appellant engaged in an inappropriate relationship and sexual harassment involving a 16-year-old girl while off duty.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice, that the Hearing Officer misapplied the burden of proof, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, made reasonable findings of credibility, and imposed an appropriate penalty given the seriousness of the conduct and the appellant's extensive prior disciplinary record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations of an inappropriate off-duty relationship and sexual harassment involving a 16-year-old girl.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice, that the hearing officer applied the wrong burden of proof, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, made reasonable credibility assessments, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar cases of serious misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations of off-duty sexual harassment and an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old girl.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing process was fair, the Hearing Officer applied the correct 'clear and convincing evidence' standard of proof, and the credibility findings were supported by the evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, the officer's extensive prior disciplinary record, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

Three complainants alleged that the respondent landlords discriminated against them by using minimum income criteria and rent-to-income ratios to deny them rental accommodation.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry found that the use of these criteria constitutes adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, family status, age, citizenship, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance.

The Board held that the landlords failed to establish that the income criteria were reasonable and bona fide, as there was no empirical evidence showing that rent-to-income ratios accurately predict a tenant's likelihood of defaulting on rent.

The Board ordered the landlords to cease using income criteria and awarded general and specific damages to the complainants.

The applicant employer applied under section 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union had not slept on its rights and was making efforts to bargain, despite unsmooth negotiations.

Applying the principle that section 65(2) is to be used as a shield and not a sword, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the employer's application.

The appellants, who were minors at the time of their respective motor vehicle accidents, commenced actions for damages more than two years after the accidents but within two years of reaching the age of majority.

The central issue was whether the two-year limitation period in section 180(1) of the Highway Traffic Act excluded the operation of section 47 of the Limitations Act, which postpones the running of limitation periods for persons under legal disability.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions are not inconsistent and that section 47 applies to postpone the limitation period for minors.

The appeals of the minor plaintiffs were allowed.

However, the adult plaintiff's claim, which was commenced after the limitation period expired, was held to be incurably out of time and was dismissed.

Appeal from an Ontario reference concerning the constitutional validity of legislation extending full public funding to Roman Catholic separate high schools.

The Supreme Court held the legislation was valid under the province's plenary education power in s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, read with s. 93(3), and that the Confederation compromise respecting denominational schools could not be overridden by Charter equality or religious-freedom guarantees.

A majority also concluded the legislation could be sustained as restoring rights protected by s. 93(1).

The appeal was dismissed, the reference question was answered in the negative, and no costs were awarded.

The appellants, who claimed Convention refugee status, were denied their claims by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Immigration Appeal Board without an oral hearing.

They argued that the procedures under the Immigration Act, 1976 violated their rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the term 'everyone' in section 7 includes every person physically present in Canada.

The Court found that the denial of an oral hearing in the refugee determination process violated the principles of fundamental justice and could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The appeals were allowed and the cases remanded for hearings on the merits.

The Canada Labour Relations Board found that a concerted refusal by production employees to work overtime constituted an unlawful strike and ordered the union and employer to submit the overtime issue to arbitration.

The union applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the strike declaration but set aside the arbitration order as beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

Both the union and the Board appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine if a strike existed and its decision was not patently unreasonable, but the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering arbitration, as the Canada Labour Code did not confer such power.

The appellant appealed a jury award of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act following the suicide of the respondent's husband, which occurred sixteen months after a motor vehicle accident caused by the appellant's negligence.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the foreseeability of suicide.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the parties had agreed before trial to limit the jury's consideration solely to the issue of causation, thereby subsuming the issue of foreseeability.

Two non-union longshoremen complained to the Canada Labour Relations Board that their respective unions breached the duty of fair referral under s. 161.1 of the Canada Labour Code.

The Board found clear breaches and, under its broad remedial powers in s. 189, ordered the unions to admit the complainants to membership and to establish proper referral rules.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the membership orders, finding the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, holding that the Board's remedial authority under s. 189 is broad enough to permit such orders in special cases to remedy the adverse consequences of the unions' failure to comply with the Code.

The appellant police association appealed a decision quashing an arbitration award that included a collective agreement clause reimbursing officers for legal expenses incurred from criminal or statutory charges flowing from their duties.

The lower courts held that the clause interfered with the statutory discretion granted to the municipality under s. 24(6) of The Police Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the permissive power to indemnify in s. 24(6) did not preclude the establishment of a collective bargaining regime under s. 29(2) regarding working conditions.

The appellant contractor bid on a railway siding project for the respondent.

Before bidding, the appellant received an inaccurate estimate of the rock excavation volume from the respondent's employee.

The construction contract contained a non-reliance clause stating the contractor did not rely on any information given by the respondent.

When the excavation required substantially more work, the appellant sued for breach of collateral warranty and negligent misrepresentation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the non-reliance clause precluded both the formation of a collateral warranty and the assumption of a duty of care necessary for negligent misrepresentation.

The appellant union refused to proceed with a part-time employee's dismissal grievance, arguing part-time employees had no grievance rights under the collective agreement.

The Canada Labour Relations Board found the union breached its statutory duty of fair representation and ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration at the union's expense.

The union sought judicial review, alleging the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board's decision was protected by a privative clause and its interpretation of its statutory powers was not patently unreasonable, thus no jurisdictional error occurred.

The appeal was quashed.