Jennifer Lee

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay, citing the plaintiff's failure to set the action down for trial since its commencement in 2015.

The court raised concerns about the plaintiff's potential disability, noting a prior temporary guardianship by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) and a recent doctor's letter indicating the plaintiff's inability to self-represent due to complex health issues.

As the PGT was not served with the motion, as required by Rule 24.02 for plaintiffs under disability, the court declined to rule on the merits of the dismissal motion.

A case conference was ordered to address next steps, including PGT involvement and a potential recusal motion by the plaintiff.

The applicant, Textile City Inc., sought relief against forfeiture of a sublease after the respondent, Reliable Logistics, attempted to terminate it, alleging non-permitted retail use and other breaches.

The court found that Textile City Inc. had indeed breached the lease by operating a retail business from the office space, but that Reliable Logistics had not waived its right to forfeiture by accepting rent.

However, the court granted relief against forfeiture, finding that Reliable Logistics had acted in bad faith through a series of actions aimed at forcing Textile City Inc. to vacate, and that Textile City Inc.'s breach was modest and had ceased.

The court also addressed ancillary issues regarding additional rent, garbage bins, and signage.

The parties separated after a six-year marriage characterized by the applicant father's coercive control and family violence.

The father sought equal parenting time and sole decision-making for education and healthcare, while the respondent mother sought primary parenting time, joint decision-making, and spousal support.

The court found that the father's history of violence significantly impacted the mother and child, causing severe anxiety.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time, with the father receiving alternating weekends and conditional summer time.

The father was also ordered to pay full Table child support and spousal support at the high end of the range due to the economic consequences of his abusive conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) refusing her request for access to personal information under the Privacy Act.

The applicant alleged she was being tracked and harassed by an electronic device.

CSIS refused to confirm or deny the existence of records, citing s. 16(2) of the Privacy Act.

The Court held that CSIS's application of the blanket policy not to disclose the existence of requested records in exempt bank CSIS PPU 045 was reasonable and in accordance with established jurisprudence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's unsupported Charter claim.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to require an Attestation for the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program, which required applicants to attest that their core mandate respects individual human rights, including reproductive rights.

The right-to-life organization refused to sign and its funding application was rejected.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Attestation was intra vires the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and was not made in bad faith or with a closed mind.

While the Attestation minimally engaged freedom of religion and expression, it reflected a proportionate balancing with the statutory objective of ensuring an inclusive labour market and protecting human rights.

The applicant, a faith-based institution, sought judicial review of a decision denying its application for Canada Summer Jobs program funding.

The court allowed the application, finding that the decision was procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

The Minister breached procedural fairness by not providing the applicant notice of concerns regarding alleged discrimination, denying them the opportunity to respond.

Furthermore, the decision was unreasonable because the record showed the Minister never actually assessed whether the applicant's project discriminated contrary to applicable laws.

A declaration was issued that the decision was procedurally unfair and unreasonable, and the applicant was awarded costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The applicant, a faith-based university, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister denying its application for funding under the 2019 Canada Summer Jobs program.

The funding was denied on the ground that the applicant had not demonstrated that it implemented measures to provide a workplace free of harassment and discrimination.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding that the Minister breached the duty of procedural fairness.

The applicant was not provided notice of the actual case to be met nor given a meaningful opportunity to provide relevant evidence regarding how its religious beliefs and policies did not result in discriminatory practices.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a full indemnity basis.

In multiple applications for judicial review challenging the 2020 firearms ban regulations, the applicants sought documentary disclosure from the Governor in Council under Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules.

The respondent objected on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality but failed to issue a certificate under section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Court held that without a valid certificate, the statutory absolute protection from review was not triggered.

Instead, the common law applied, requiring the Court to review the documents to balance the public interest in disclosure against confidentiality.

The Court ordered the respondent to file the materials under seal for the Court's review.

The Applicants sought leave under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules to pursue judicial review of multiple decisions in respect of which relief is sought, specifically challenging up to 600 individual technical opinions made by the RCMP adding firearms to the Firearms Reference Table.

The Court dismissed the motions, finding the Applicants failed to specify which technical opinions they wanted to review, thereby running afoul of Rule 301(c)(ii) and preventing the Court from determining the matters under review or exercising its discretion to make a Rule 302 exception.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of two decisions denying eligibility of a golf course located on a Canadian Forces Base for payments in lieu of taxes under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act.

The respondent determined the golf course was not "federal property" because it was occupied by the applicant under a concession agreement.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the respondent breached procedural fairness by failing to provide fair and effective notice of the case to meet, given the applicant's legitimate expectations based on past payments.

The Court also found the decisions unreasonable as they failed to adequately explain the departure from past practice and did not consider the factual matrix of whether the golf course was truly "occupied" by the applicant.

The matter was remitted for redetermination.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction staying the operation of regulations prohibiting certain firearms pending the outcome of their applications for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the motions, finding the applicants failed to demonstrate with clear and non-speculative evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed an order of a Case Management Judge dismissing her action for damages against the Crown and various officials.

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to pay security for costs and outstanding costs awards by the deadline established in an earlier case management order.

On the eve of the deadline, the plaintiff attempted to file a motion for an extension of time.

The Case Management Judge rejected the motion for filing and granted the defendants' informal request to dismiss the action.

On appeal, the Federal Court held the Case Management Judge made no palpable and overriding error, noting the extension motion lacked merit and the dismissal was the foreseeable consequence of failing to comply with the prior order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.