James Gorham

The applicant, Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), challenged a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit and its preliminary recommendation to suspend MAC's charitable status, alleging Charter violations based on discriminatory information and Islamophobia.

The court dismissed the application on grounds of prematurity, holding that judicial intervention was inappropriate before the completion of the administrative process, which included internal appeals and further rights of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada or Federal Court of Appeal.

The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) brought a motion for a sealing order concerning an Administrative Fairness Letter (AFL) and its responses, central to its application alleging systemic bias and Islamophobia in a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the sealing order, proposing a more tailored redaction approach.

The court, applying the Sherman Estate test, declined the full sealing order.

While acknowledging a serious risk to the physical safety and dignity of minors and peripherally involved MAC members due to personal information, the court found that a full sealing order was not necessary.

Instead, it ordered specific redactions of names of minors and peripherally involved members, personal contact information, and financial details, emphasizing the paramount importance of open courts for public debate on government conduct, especially concerning allegations of constitutional violations.

The Attorney General of Canada applied for a winding-up order for the Canadian business of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. as liquidator, pursuant to the Bank Act and the Winding-Up and Restructuring Act.

SVB, a U.S. bank with a Canadian branch, became insolvent in the U.S., leading to its assets being transferred to a bridge bank.

The Superintendent of Financial Institutions had taken control of SVB's Canadian assets.

The court found it just and equitable to grant the winding-up order, noting SVB's insolvency and the need to protect Canadian creditors and stakeholders, as the U.S. bridge bank was not authorized to operate in Canada.

The order provides broad powers to the liquidator while ensuring court supervision and protection for stakeholders.

The moving party brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from rendering a final audit decision that could recommend the revocation of its charitable status.

The moving party alleged the audit was tainted by Islamophobia and violated its Charter rights.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm because the CRA had not yet made a final decision, making the anticipated harm premature and speculative.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the CRA due to the public interest in its regulatory role, and the moving party failed to meet the high threshold for a quia timet injunction.

Following the dismissal of a class action concerning medical device implants, the Crown sought over $6.3 million in costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs based on public interest and access to justice principles under the Class Proceedings Act, and sought costs for an unproven fraud allegation against a witness.

The court significantly reduced the Crown's costs to $385,000, noting the public interest nature of the case, the access to justice mandate, and the Crown's own contribution to the 20-year delay.

OHIP was ordered to pay 10% of the costs, with the remainder payable by the Law Foundation of Ontario.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the Canadian prison needle exchange program (PNEP), specifically its "threat risk assessment" (TRA) feature, arguing it violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying effective access to essential health care.

The court dismissed the application, finding it premature due to the ongoing PNEP rollout and evolving design.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish that professionally accepted standards required a health services-centered model without security staff involvement, or that the PNEP/TRA model breached Charter rights by being arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate, or by discriminating on enumerated grounds.

The plaintiff brought a class action against the Crown alleging negligent regulation of Vitek Proplast temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants by Health Canada.

The plaintiff claimed that the Crown owed a private law duty of care to the class members and breached that duty by failing to properly regulate the devices, issuing Notices of Compliance negligently, and failing to adequately warn the public or recall the devices.

Following a lengthy common issues trial, the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action.

The court applied the Anns test and concluded that the Crown did not owe a private law duty of care to the class members, as there was insufficient proximity between the regulator and the unidentifiable group of potential implant recipients.

Furthermore, the court found that even if a duty of care existed, the Crown did not breach the applicable standard of care, as its regulatory actions and responses to the evolving scientific understanding of the implants' risks were reasonable and appropriate.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellants (The Attorney General of Canada and two officers) were successful on appeal and were awarded costs.

The Court of Appeal set aside the trial costs order and awarded the appellants costs at trial on a partial indemnity basis, in addition to costs of the appeal.

An appeal from a trial judgment that recognized a new common law tort of harassment and found the defendants liable for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The plaintiff, an RCMP constable, alleged harassment and bullying by RCMP managers from 2005 to 2012.

The trial judge awarded $100,000 in general damages, $41,000 in special damages, and $825,000 in costs.

The appellate court reversed, holding that no tort of harassment exists in Ontario and that the elements of intentional infliction of mental suffering were not established.

The court found numerous palpable and overriding factual errors in the trial judge's findings, particularly regarding the plaintiff's failure to comply with regulations requiring leave without pay before running for political nomination and the bona fides of management's concerns about conflicts of interest.

The plaintiff, who was previously investigated for stock fraud and entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission, sued 67 defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts.

Ten motions were brought by 64 defendants to strike the pleadings and dismiss the actions.

The court dismissed the action against the Attorney General of Ontario because the malicious prosecution claim could not succeed, as the criminal proceedings were stayed pursuant to a settlement and thus not terminated in the plaintiff's favour.

The actions against the remaining moving defendants were dismissed as an abuse of process because they attempted to re-litigate facts already settled or judicially determined in prior proceedings.

A mining company sought indemnification from the federal government for environmental remediation costs associated with uranium tailings produced under Cold War-era fixed-price uranium supply contracts with a Crown corporation.

The plaintiff argued that the contracts contained an implied term guaranteeing profitability or requiring indemnification if later government regulation increased production costs, and alternatively alleged breach of a duty of good faith and unjust enrichment.

The government moved for summary judgment dismissing the action, while the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the proposed implied term was inconsistent with the express fixed‑price structure of the contracts and failed the necessity test for implying contractual terms.

It further held that the doctrine of good faith could not be used to create new obligations inconsistent with the contract, and that the government's enactment of environmental legislation did not constitute contractual bad faith.