James Mutoigo

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review regarding autism funding, the respondent sought costs against the applicant's counsel personally.

The court found that the applicant's counsel had engaged in unreasonable conduct, including making baseless allegations of falsified records, failing to comply with undertakings, and causing unnecessary delays.

Applying the test under Rule 57.07, the court ordered the applicant's counsel to personally pay the respondent's costs, fixed at $50,000.

The applicant, a 17-year-old with autism, sought judicial review of the respondent's decision denying him eligibility for government-funded Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) therapy.

The applicant alleged that the respondent lost medical records, failed to follow assessment guidelines, and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of lost records or procedural unfairness.

The court held that the respondent's clinical assessment was conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines and its conclusion that the applicant was not at the severe end of the autism spectrum was reasonable.

Although the application was technically moot due to changes in the government's autism funding policy, the court addressed the merits to dispose of the applicant's unfounded allegations against the respondent's staff.

The respondent in an application for judicial review regarding autism funding brought a motion to strike the applicant's affidavits and dismiss the application due to the litigation guardian's failure to attend cross-examination.

The court declined to strike the affidavits or dismiss the application, finding that the filing of a Certificate of Perfection did not bar cross-examination, and instead ordered the litigation guardian to attend.

The court deferred the respondent's alternative requests to strike portions of the affidavits and to dismiss the application for mootness to the Divisional Court panel hearing the main application.

The court also awarded costs to the respondent for an unsuccessful recusal motion brought by the applicant.

The respondent, ErinoakKids, brought a motion seeking to strike affidavits, dismiss the application for judicial review due to the applicant's litigation guardian's failure to attend cross-examination, or compel cross-examination.

The motion also addressed the mootness of the underlying judicial review application due to recent policy changes in autism funding eligibility.

The court ordered the litigation guardian to attend cross-examination, reserved the issues of striking affidavits and mootness to the Divisional Court, and awarded costs to ErinoakKids for an unnecessary recusal motion brought by the applicant.