Jennifer Kelly Amelia Boyczuk

The defendant, Ontario, brought a motion to defer filing its statement of defence in a proposed class proceeding concerning the alleged maltreatment of inmates at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

Ontario argued that exceptional circumstances existed, including the need to await an appellate decision in a related criminal matter and to investigate recent amendments to the statement of claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were not exceptional and that requiring the statement of defence would advance the litigation, frame the issues for certification, and serve the public interest in timely justice.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner decisions ordering the Cabinet Office to obtain and review entries from the Premier's personal cellphone call logs that related to government business.

The IPC had found that these specific call logs were under the control of the Cabinet Office pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's application of the National Defence control test was reasonable and that the decisions appropriately balanced the public's right of access to government information with the protection of personal privacy.

A reference to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning whether legal online gaming and sports betting would remain lawful under the Criminal Code if users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada.

The majority (Tulloch C.J.O., Gillese, Hourigan and Dawe JJ.A.) answered affirmatively, finding that section 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code permits Ontario to conduct and manage a lottery scheme with international pooled liquidity, provided Ontario continues to conduct and manage the Ontario-based aspects of the scheme in accordance with provincial law.

The majority rejected the application of the real and substantial connection test and distinguished the Earth Future decisions.

Van Rensburg J.A. dissented, arguing that the Proposed Model would contravene the Criminal Code because it would require Ontario to conduct and manage aspects of the lottery scheme outside Ontario's territorial boundaries, contrary to the plain meaning of "in that province" in section 207(1)(a).

The applicant, a designated vexatious litigant, sought leave to bring multiple motions for production of documents from the Crown, Ontario Provincial Police, and the Ministry of the Solicitor General relating to criminal charges that were subsequently withdrawn.

The court declined to grant leave, finding the proposed motions had no prospect of success and constituted an abuse of process.

The court also granted the respondent's motion to strike portions of the record containing criminal disclosure briefs that were filed in violation of the D.P. v. Wagg protocol.

A self-represented plaintiff sought damages for financial losses allegedly caused by uncertainty regarding his corporation's land ownership due to an unresolved Indigenous land claim by Six Nations against Canada and Ontario.

The defendants brought cross-motions to strike the claim.

The court dismissed the action on multiple grounds: the proceeding was a nullity against Ontario due to failure to provide the mandatory 60-day notice required by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019; the claim was plainly and obviously statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002; and the plaintiff failed to establish a cognizable cause of action in negligence or breach of fiduciary duty against either defendant.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings to add corporate plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to adduce evidence and for a confidentiality order in the context of a reference regarding the legality of an online provincial lottery scheme permitting international play.

The court granted leave to the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Canadian Lottery Coalition Members to file their proposed evidence, finding it potentially helpful for the reference panel.

The court dismissed the Canadian Gaming Association's motion for a confidentiality order, ruling that alleged reputational harm was a private interest insufficient to override court openness, especially as the information was largely public.

The Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke sought a declaration that Ontario's iGaming scheme, enabled by specific provincial legislative provisions, was inoperative.

The Council argued that these provisions impermissibly allowed private operators to "conduct and manage" lottery schemes, which, under the Criminal Code, is reserved for provincial governments, thus violating the division of powers and triggering the doctrine of paramountcy.

The respondents, iGaming Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario, challenged the Council's standing and argued that Ontario, through iGO, properly conducts and manages the scheme.

The court granted the Council public interest standing but ultimately dismissed the application, finding that Ontario, through iGO, maintains sufficient control to be considered the "operating mind" of the iGaming scheme, thereby complying with the Criminal Code and avoiding paramountcy.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Animal Care Review Board confirming the removal of animals from his zoo and ordering him to pay $105,059.35 in care costs.

The applicant argued the Board's decisions were unreasonable due to an absence of evidence, misapprehension of evidence, and failure to consider his expert evidence and legal submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions reasonable and denying the applicant's motion to admit fresh evidence.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory procedural order of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding an expropriation compensation claim.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns about its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory tribunal order.

Applying established case law, the court confirmed that absent clear statutory language, there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory tribunal decision under either the Ontario Land Tribunal Act or the Expropriations Act.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it was doomed to fail for lack of jurisdiction.

The Crown brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence action.

The plaintiffs, hog farmers, alleged the Crown's 2007-2008 financial assistance program was negligently designed because it used outdated 2000-2004 sales data, resulting in insufficient payments.

The central issues were whether the program's design decision was a policy or operational decision (policy decisions are immune from negligence liability) and whether the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The court found the design decision was a core policy decision, immune from liability, and alternatively, that the plaintiffs' claim was statute-barred as they had sufficient knowledge of their claim in 2008, not 2014 as they argued.

The Crown's motion for summary dismissal was allowed without costs.

The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government for its response to COVID-19 in long-term care homes, asserting claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of Charter s. 7.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care (MLTC) but struck the other claims.

This appeal and cross-appeal challenged that decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appellants' appeal (seeking to certify the struck claims) and the respondent's cross-appeal (seeking to decertify the negligence claim against the MLTC), thereby upholding the motion judge's original certification decision.

The appellant sought to withhold 23 mandate letters delivered by the Premier of Ontario to each minister upon forming government in 2018, claiming exemption under s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as Cabinet records that would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the letters were non-exempt outcomes of the Premier's deliberative process rather than records revealing the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the IPC failed to give meaningful weight to the constitutional conventions of Cabinet confidentiality, the fluid and dynamic nature of the Cabinet decision-making process, and the central role of the Premier within that process.

The Court found the mandate letters were revealing of the substance of Cabinet deliberations, both on their face and when compared against subsequent government action, and that the IPC's narrow interpretation of s. 12(1) was unreasonable.

At a Case Management Conference for an expropriation compensation claim, the Tribunal considered whether the non-lawyer executor of the claimant estate could represent the estate.

Applying Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and related jurisprudence, the Tribunal held that an estate must be represented by a lawyer.

The Tribunal ordered the executor to retain legal counsel within 30 days, failing which the respondent could move to dismiss the proceeding.

The Tribunal also denied party status to a former lawyer claiming a mortgage interest for unpaid fees.

This is an appeal management endorsement concerning an appeal and cross-appeal from a class action certification decision.

The underlying action alleges gross negligence by the Government of Ontario regarding COVID-19 deaths and illnesses in long-term care homes.

The Court of Appeal addressed requests for extended factum lengths and oral hearing time.

The judge granted leave for longer factums (50 pages for the main appeal, 30 for the cross-appeal) and scheduled a two-day oral hearing.

The endorsement also provided guidance on the effective use and timely delivery of Oral Hearing Compendiums.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated December 20, 2022, regarding a certification motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and noted that the parties could apply to the Court of Appeal to have this appeal heard together with the pending appeal of the dismissal of the balance of the certification motion.

No costs were awarded as costs outlines were not filed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the respondent's alleged decision to allow coyote hunting contests to proceed without written authorization, contrary to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent did not authorize the contests.

Instead, the contests proceeded without authorization, and the respondent's Enforcement Branch exercised its prosecutorial discretion not to lay charges.

The court held that this discretionary decision is immune from judicial review absent bad faith or abuse of process, which were not alleged.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in long-term care (LTC) homes.

The plaintiffs alleged gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The court certified the class action solely on the negligence/gross negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care, finding it arguable that the Long-Term Care Homes Act imposes a private law duty of care on the Minister to protect LTC residents.

The fiduciary duty and Charter claims were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The class was limited to LTC residents and their families, excluding visitors.

The applicants applied to the City of Toronto to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded on the basis of inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had sufficient household income and bank balances to meet their financial obligations, including the payment of the 2020 property taxes.

As the applicants were able to pay their taxes, the application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2019 property taxes of $680.86, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting a monthly income deficit but significant available credit and a Tax-Free Savings Account.

The Board found that the applicant had not exhausted all available financial resources to mitigate her property tax obligation, having used her credit to pay legal fees instead.

The application was dismissed as the applicant was deemed able to pay the taxes.

The applicant filed an application to have its 2019 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty.

A pre-hearing event was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Assessment Review Board found no evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment and dismissed the application for non-attendance pursuant to Rule 104 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.