Jeffrey Michael Claydon

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision denying a certificate of eligibility for the Ontario Digital Media Tax Credit for its interactive digital sweepstakes games.

The respondent had concluded the games were ineligible because their primary purpose was to promote the sale of long-distance phone cards.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the respondent's decision unreasonable.

The court held that the regulatory definition focuses on the characteristics of the game when operated by the user, making the developer's motivation for creating the games an irrelevant consideration.

The defendants, the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa and the police, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent and breached their duties by failing to investigate an assault by his ex-wife in 1995.

The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the assault and the police's refusal to lay charges by 2002 at the latest.

Consequently, the limitation period had expired long before the action was commenced in 2016.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, concluding it was plain and obvious the claim had no chance of success and was an abuse of process.

The applicants, Dr. Bernstein's corporations, moved for judgment against Norma Walton, Ronauld Walton, and their companies for $66.9 million, alleging civil fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, and sought a declaration that the debt would survive bankruptcy.

The Waltons brought a counter-application for damages and a cross-motion for a trial on the fraud issue.

Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation and Gideon and Irene Levytam also sought relief regarding their investments.

The court found the Waltons liable for civil fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, awarding the applicants $66.9 million plus interest, and declared the debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(d) and (e) of the BIA.

The Waltons' counter-application was struck as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicants' claims against Schedule C Companies for knowing assistance and knowing receipt were dismissed.

DeJong was granted constructive trusts over specific Schedule C properties for their investments due to the Waltons' breach of fiduciary duties.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the applicants' motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The respondents, including EACOM Timber Corporation, Northshore Forest Inc., Vermilion Forest Management Company Ltd., and two government Ministries, did not seek costs.

The applicants requested that no costs be ordered against them.

The court, noting the lack of costs requests from the respondents and the applicants' position, ordered that all parties bear their own costs for the interlocutory injunction motion.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to halt logging, road building, and aerial spraying in the Benny area, asserting a lack of meaningful consultation and consent regarding their Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

The court applied the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction, finding that the Crown's duty to consult with the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First Nation (AAFN) had been met through extensive engagement, which led to the approval of remedial measures by the AAFN Chief and Council.

The applicants failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm, as their claims were general and the Crown's protective measures were deemed ample.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, given the significant economic impact and job losses that an injunction would cause.

The court also clarified that the duty to consult is owed to the collective Aboriginal group, not individual members, and rejected claims of additional hereditary clan leader reserves under the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The accused brought a procedural motion within a Rowbotham application seeking permission to file his Legal Aid Ontario file with the court without disclosing it to the Crown.

He argued the file contained presumptively privileged information and disclosure could prejudice trial fairness given the fraud-related charges.

The Crown agreed that privileged portions could be redacted and undertook not to use fresh disclosure from the file at trial.

The court held that relevant non-privileged information from the Legal Aid file may be necessary to assess a Rowbotham application and that the adversarial process requires disclosure to permit cross‑examination and submissions.

Given the availability of redactions and the Crown’s undertaking, the court found the risk of prejudice minimal and rejected the request to file the materials ex parte.

The plaintiff, an inmate and member of the Malvern Crew street gang, was severely beaten by a rival gang member while housed at the Don Jail.

He sued the Crown in negligence for placing him in the same unit as the rival gang member.

The court found that the Crown owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to consider inmate compatibility when applying its numeric balancing policy for housing gang members.

The Crown knew or ought to have known of the severe security threat posed by the rival gang member.

The court found the Crown liable for the assault, but reduced the damages by 15% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in failing to request protective custody.