Jennifer Kelly Amelia Boyczuk

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Provincial Police, and the Ministry of the Solicitor General relating to criminal charges that were subsequently withdrawn.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 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.

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 plaintiff, Jade Elizabeth Thelwell, commenced an action for damages against the Toronto Police Services Board and 16 police officers for alleged wrongful conduct between 2014 and 2019, including false arrest, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, misfeasance, defamation, and breaches of Charter and Human Rights Code rights.

The defendants brought a motion to strike various parts of the claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion in part, striking several claims without leave to amend (e.g., false arrest where a guilty plea or valid warrant existed, negligent investigation against police for complaints, property-based claims for passport), and striking others with leave to amend to provide sufficient particulars (e.g., malice/malicious prosecution, misfeasance, discrimination claims).

Claims relating to the unlawful delivery of the plaintiff's passport to CIC and certain defamation claims were allowed to proceed.