Joanna Chan

The moving party sought to review the Court of Appeal's dismissal of her appeal from a Superior Court order that struck her claim as an abuse of process.

The original claim arose from a 2018 administrative error by Service Ontario that erroneously transferred registered vehicle ownership.

The moving party's motion under Rule 59.06 alleged that the panel made false statements and that one panel member was biased.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the moving party had already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

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 plaintiff moved to strike numerous paragraphs of the defendants' statements of defence on the basis of res judicata or abuse of process, arguing the defendants were seeking to re-litigate findings made by the Mining and Lands Tribunal (MLT) regarding a hydroelectric dam approval.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned pleadings fairly responded to the plaintiff's allegations of delay and misfeasance.

Furthermore, the court held that the MLT decision was merely a recommendation to the Minister and not a final judicial decision capable of grounding res judicata.

The motion against the Independent Electricity System Operator was also dismissed as it was not a party to the MLT proceeding.

Two competing class counsel groups sought carriage of a proposed class action against the Province of Ontario regarding COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care homes.

The Nisbet Action proposed suing Ontario solely for its several liability to avoid third-party claims and expedite certification.

The Robertson Action proposed a conventional joint and several liability approach, expecting third-party claims between Ontario and long-term care operators.

The court granted carriage to the Robertson Action, finding that the several liability approach offered no early-stage advantage and would create significant disadvantages in later-stage litigation, including potential unfairness to the defendant and risks of unrecovered losses for class members.

This proposed class action concerned the alleged retention of DNA profiles by the Province of Ontario after individuals voluntarily provided samples for forensic DNA analysis that did not match any samples obtained under the Criminal Code.

The plaintiff moved for certification of the action, alleging breach of the Criminal Code, violation of section 8 of the Charter, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The defendant consented to certification shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding and addressed two outstanding issues: costs of the certification motion and the temporal limit of the proposed class.

The court adopted a hybrid approach for costs, ordering half payable forthwith and half in the cause, and fixed the quantum at $124,504.38.

The court also ordered that the temporal limit of the class definition be "without prejudice to the plaintiff bringing a future motion within this proceeding to certify an amended class" to protect future class members.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing her application for mandamus and certiorari challenging the Director of the Special Investigations Unit's decision not to lay criminal charges against police officers involved in a shooting incident.

The application judge had dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding it should be heard by the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act rather than by a single Superior Court judge under the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that applications involving criminal matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code, not provincial legislation, and must be heard by a single Superior Court judge under the Criminal Proceedings Rules.