Jeremy Glick

The former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario applied under subsection 700(2) of the Criminal Code to be excused from attending trial as a witness pursuant to a subpoena issued by the defendant.

The defendant alleged that the former Lieutenant Governor had originated the criminal charges against him and possessed material evidence.

The court found that the defendant's assertions were entirely speculative and unsupported, contradicted by credible Crown evidence.

The former Lieutenant Governor's only involvement was appearing as a carbon copy recipient on the letters in question.

The application to be excused from the subpoena was granted.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of the Director's issuance of a renewable energy approval, while simultaneously pursuing an appeal before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT).

The respondents brought a motion to quash the judicial review application on the basis of prematurity.

The court granted the motion and quashed the application, applying the doctrine of exhaustion.

The court found that the ERT had the power to provide an effective remedy (revocation of the approval) and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying early recourse to the courts.

During a family law proceeding, the motion judge ordered Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario to pay costs to the parties due to a delay caused by a court staffing shortage.

Ontario, a non-party, appealed the costs order, arguing it was made without notice.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and set aside the costs order, finding that the motion judge erred in principle and was plainly wrong to make a costs order against a non-party without notice.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his amended statement of claim against the Crown.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested declaratory relief.

Furthermore, the damages claim was a repetition of a previously dismissed claim, and the action constituted an impermissible collateral attack on an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding bank fees for cashing pay cheques.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Appeals by Richard Storey and Peter Cordeiro against convictions and sentences for offences under the Consumer Protection Act.

Both appellants were tried in absentia and convicted.

The original sentences imposed were significantly harsher than those sought by Crown counsel.

On judicial pretrial, the Crown and defence counsel agreed that the original sentences were unreasonable and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The convictions were upheld on consent, but the sentences were substantially varied to reflect more proportionate terms of imprisonment, with concurrent rather than consecutive service, and restitution orders were imposed.

During a lengthy and complex family law trial involving international access, child support, and allegations of domestic violence and parental alienation, the trial judge appointed counsel as amici curiae to assist the court after both parents became effectively self‑represented.

The Attorney General objected to the appointments and appealed, arguing the court exceeded its jurisdiction and improperly required the province to fund counsel acting primarily for the parties.

On the appeal motion, the court determined that independent responding submissions were necessary because the parties lacked resources to participate.

The court therefore appointed the same amici to respond to the appeal and directed them to file materials and make oral submissions.

The court also commented on principles governing remuneration of amici and encouraged the Attorney General and counsel to agree on reasonable compensation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application against the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not reviewing the evidence filed in his supplementary application record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, endorsing the principle that Rule 2.1 is designed for summary dismissal based on the face of the pleadings and written submissions, and that resorting to evidence defeats the purpose of the rule.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after Legal Aid Ontario denied coverage.

The court considered whether the accused had been denied Legal Aid, lacked the financial means to retain counsel, and whether counsel was necessary to ensure a fair trial given the seriousness and complexity of the case.

The charges involved significant financial transactions, alleged fraud and bankruptcy-related offences, and potentially complex evidentiary and procedural issues including third-party records applications.

The court found the accused was indigent, unable to retain private counsel, and that the legal complexity and seriousness of the charges created a real risk of an unfair trial if he proceeded self-represented.

A temporary stay was granted to permit the Crown to arrange funding for defence counsel.

The moving parties sought to set aside a registrar's dismissal order made for delay under the Rules of Civil Procedure in an action alleging police misconduct, bad faith investigation, and Charter breaches arising from events tied to a prior criminal prosecution.

Applying the established four-factor framework, the court held the moving parties failed to adequately explain the litigation delay, failed to show inadvertence in missing the deadline, and failed to bring the motion promptly.

The court further found a presumption of prejudice arising from the passage of time, held that presumption was not rebutted, and found actual prejudice to the police defendants due to unavailable witnesses and faded memories.

In a contextual assessment, the court also accepted that there was no valid cause of action against the provincial Crown on the pleaded facts.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was dismissed, with no costs sought.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after Legal Aid Ontario refused funding.

The court considered whether the accused had exhausted Legal Aid appeals, was indigent, and whether counsel was necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The evidence showed the accused had no income while incarcerated, had exhausted available financial resources, and had not deliberately depleted assets to qualify for assistance.

Given the seriousness of the charge, complexity of the case, and the accused’s limited education and legal experience, the court held that representation by counsel was essential to preserve fair trial rights under s. 7 of the Charter.

The moving party, Windlectric Inc., proposed a wind energy project on Amherst Island.

The Ministry of the Environment deemed the application complete, initiating the technical review phase.

The responding party, an association opposing the project, sought judicial review to quash the completeness determination, arguing the application lacked an adequate emergency response plan.

Windlectric brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that a completeness check is an administrative step, not a statutory power of decision or a matter subject to public law remedies.

The court also held that the application for judicial review was premature, as the administrative process and available appeals had not been exhausted.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff’s written costs submissions were filed out of time and were not considered by the court.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the event.

The court accepted the defendants’ reduced request for partial indemnity costs and noted that the proceeding had been ill-advised, unduly prolonged, and at times conducted in an abusive fashion.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in the amount of $55,662.16.

The plaintiff sued the OPP and an investigating officer for negligent investigation and Charter breaches after being investigated for allegedly defrauding an elderly woman and the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The police concluded there were no grounds for criminal charges but shared information with other agencies.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding the investigation met the standard of a reasonable police officer and the plaintiff failed to prove any compensable damages or genuine issue requiring a trial.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s construction tendering claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs to the date of its Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, holding that a nominal offer to dismiss the action without costs did not justify enhanced costs absent sanctionable conduct by the plaintiff.

Given the unsettled state of the law on construction tendering issues and the legitimate legal dispute raised, the court found the case warranted litigation.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded with reductions to certain fees and disbursements, including expert and travel expenses.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order requiring the state to fund defence counsel for pending sexual offence charges in the Superior Court of Justice and related charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The accused had previously discharged two legal aid lawyers on the eve of trial and Legal Aid Ontario refused to authorize a third certificate.

The court held that an accused cannot rely on a legal aid refusal caused by their own conduct to obtain publicly funded counsel and found that the appointment of amicus curiae was sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The court further found the request for funding for counsel at the preliminary inquiry stage in the Ontario Court of Justice was premature and not supported by exceptional circumstances.

The application for a Rowbotham order was therefore dismissed.

The defendants, Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that dismissed their motions for summary judgment and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The underlying action involved a fatal collision following a high-speed chase by Akwesasne Police Service officers, with the plaintiffs alleging vicarious and direct liability against the government defendants.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision conflicted with established appellate authorities on the tests for summary judgment, amending pleadings, and establishing a private law duty of care, and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

Following a successful application declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $38,475 for the vexatious litigant application.

The respondent argued costs should be minimal or deferred due to impecuniosity and pending related actions.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were justified due to the respondent’s conduct in prosecuting the underlying actions that prompted the vexatious litigant application.

Costs of $38,475 were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis, payable in any event of a related action upon its completion.

The plaintiff contractor challenged the rejection of its bid in a public tender for a highway construction project, alleging breach of the tendering process and seeking lost profits after the contract was awarded to a higher bidder.

The owner investigated the bid following a complaint and determined that the bidder had understated the declared value of imported steel, a factor used to calculate the adjusted tender price.

The court held that the owner was entitled to investigate compliance beyond the face of the bid and that the inaccurate declaration constituted a material non-compliance with the tender requirements, preventing formation of Contract A under the tendering framework.

The court further held that even if there had been a breach, the claim would have been barred by an exclusion clause in the tender documents.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an intended class proceeding against the Crown arising from a criminal proceeding where his Charter rights were infringed due to an incompetent interpreter.

The Crown brought a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite 60 days' written notice under s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The plaintiff argued that a release signed in relation to a costs settlement in the criminal matter, along with the application record and factum, constituted sufficient notice.

The court held that the documents did not provide sufficient particulars to identify the occasion out of which the civil claim arose, leaving the Crown to guess its potential liability.

The action was dismissed as a nullity.

The defendant was charged with operating a transport truck in contravention of an oversized vehicle permit under section 110(7) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant operated a commercial truck carrying heavy machinery with dimensions exceeding the permitted width of 2.6 meters without the required extremity warning lights and retro-reflective signage during night hours.

The defendant claimed he exercised due diligence by placing warning banners and flags and relying on manufacturer-installed mirror lights.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that the worn-out banner lacked proper retro-reflective qualities and the mirror lights were inadequate to warn other drivers of the overhanging load.

The court rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding that as an experienced truck driver familiar with the permit, he should have ensured compliance with all safety requirements.