Jennifer Bruce

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the cancellation of her Ontario Works benefits and an overpayment assessment of over $95,000.

The administrator had determined she was not living as a single person.

After the Tribunal denied her appeal and first reconsideration request, the appellant obtained her Ontario Works file and submitted new, highly material evidence in a second reconsideration request.

The Tribunal denied the second request using boilerplate reasons identical to the first denial.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons addressing the new evidence, which was material to the appellant's credibility and living situation.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The underlying appeal concerned the cancellation of the appellant's social benefits on the basis that she was not living as a single person, raising issues of gender-based violence and culturally competent assessments of marital relationships.

The court granted the motion, finding that SALCO had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the appeal and could provide a unique and distinct perspective without causing undue delay or prejudice to the parties.

The plaintiff moved to amend his statement of claim to add the Regional Municipality of Peel as a defendant in a slip and fall action, more than two years after the accident.

The plaintiff argued the claim against Peel was not discoverable earlier because Peel's representative had erroneously advised that the City of Mississauga was responsible for the sidewalk.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff met the test for adding a party after the apparent expiry of a limitation period, as the plaintiff rebutted the presumption of discovery and offered a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court found no non-compensable prejudice to Peel, given it had actual notice of the claim within a month of the accident.

The appellant, a live-in caregiver, appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of her judicial review application.

She sought special priority status for subsidized housing, arguing she was abused by her employer and financially dependent on them.

The Regional Municipality of Peel denied this, asserting the relationship was not familial and financial dependence ceased with employment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the Region's decision was reasonable, deferring to the administrative body's interpretation of "financially dependent" within the Housing Services Act, 2011, especially given the need to allocate scarce resources.

The Court found the Divisional Court did not err by providing additional context for the Region's decision.

The defendant contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff municipality's claim for construction defects was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff discovered roof leaks in January 2015 but did not receive an engineering report confirming the cause until March 13, 2015.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence and could not have drawn a plausible inference of liability until receiving the expert opinion.

The limitation period did not begin to run until March 13, 2015.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to add the Port Hope Police Services Board as a defendant and to amend his statement of claim.

The proposed amendments alleged that Port Hope Police provided an unredacted report to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, leading to the dismissal of his complaint, and that police were involved in his termination from employment.

The court dismissed the motion to add Port Hope Police, finding the proposed claims were an abuse of process as they sought to relitigate findings already made in previous Federal Court and wrongful dismissal proceedings.

Unopposed amendments to increase damages and add a Charter claim against the existing defendant were permitted.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Region's decision denying her special priority status on the subsidized housing waitlist.

The applicant, a live-in caregiver, was abused by her employer and argued she was financially dependent on him.

The Region determined that an employer-employee relationship did not constitute financial dependency under the Housing Services Act and its regulations, which are intended to assist victims of domestic abuse in familial relationships.

The Divisional Court found the Region's interpretation reasonable and dismissed the application.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing his motion for the production of documents from the defendant Police Services Board and the non-party Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The plaintiff alleged a decade-long campaign of police harassment and sought an unredacted occurrence report.

The Superior Court granted an extension of time to appeal and allowed the appeal in part.

The Court found the Master made a palpable and overriding error by requiring the plaintiff to wait until after a pending Rule 21 motion to obtain relevant documents from the Board, noting this unjustly hindered the self-represented litigant.

However, the Court upheld the Master's decision denying production from the CHRC based on privilege, directing the plaintiff to seek production directly from the originating police forces.

The plaintiff, Francis Aboagye, sought production orders against the defendant, The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, and the non-party, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The motion against the Board was dismissed without prejudice, pending a motion to strike the statement of claim, as relevance could not be determined.

The motion against the CHRC for an unredacted occurrence report was dismissed with prejudice, as the report was found to be privileged in the CHRC's hands under the Wigmore criteria, having been provided by the Port Hope Police Service under an express condition of confidentiality.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after drugs were discovered during a strip search incident to arrest.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8 and 9.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds for the warrantless arrest, relying on uncorroborated confidential informant information, violating s. 9.

Furthermore, the strip search violated s. 8 as it lacked sufficient grounds and was conducted in a highly unreasonable and degrading manner, leaving the accused fully naked for 15 minutes.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) and dismissed the charge.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce a surveillance video, a list of unproduced accident benefits documents, and Dr. Deathe's assessment report.

The court dismissed the request for a list of accident benefits documents, finding no evidentiary basis to conclude further documents existed beyond what was already disclosed.

However, the court ordered the production of the surveillance video and Dr. Deathe's report (if it exists), deeming both relevant to the plaintiff's tort claim, despite the plaintiff's arguments regarding their limited scope or non-existence.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a controlled substance following the discovery of crack cocaine and powder cocaine in the front console of a vehicle he was driving on November 14, 2013.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish a prima facie case based on circumstantial evidence.

The court found that while the accused had control over the drugs, the Crown failed to establish knowledge of the hidden drugs beyond a reasonable inference.

The court discharged the accused on both counts, finding that knowledge could not be the only reasonable inference from the facts presented.