John B. Laskin

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their third party claim against a law firm and its partner, as well as the associated costs order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the pleadings did not properly allege conspiracy against the respondents and that the respondents owed no duty of care to the appellants, who were non-clients and opponents in litigation.

However, the Court allowed the costs appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in principle by awarding partial indemnity costs equal to the full amount of actual costs paid, and reduced the costs award by one third.

A federal Crown corporation applied for a declaration that a municipal by-law regulating the placement of community mailboxes and imposing a permit requirement and moratorium was invalid.

The court held the by-law was void for vagueness because it provided no intelligible standards guiding the director’s discretion over permit approvals.

The by-law also conflicted with federal legislation and regulations governing postal services, frustrating the federal purpose of enabling efficient mail delivery.

Applying constitutional doctrines including paramountcy, interjurisdictional immunity, and federal Crown immunity, the court found the municipality had impermissibly intruded into the federal jurisdiction over postal services.

The by-law was therefore inoperative and of no force or effect in relation to community mailboxes.

The Court allowed the appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal and set aside the divestiture order under s. 92 of the Competition Act.

A majority held the merger likely prevented competition substantially, but concluded the efficiencies defence in s. 96 succeeded because proven efficiency gains outweighed proven anti-competitive effects after the Commissioner failed to quantify quantifiable effects.

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.

The applicant, East Durham Wind, Inc., sought judicial review of two municipal by-laws enacted by the Municipality of West Grey that prevented the construction of a provincially approved wind energy project.

The applicant held a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) but required municipal entrance and oversize haulage permits.

The Divisional Court found that the municipal by-laws frustrated the purpose of the REA, which was to facilitate renewable energy projects under the Green Energy Act.

The court declared the by-laws inoperative to the extent of the conflict and ordered the municipality to reconsider the permit applications.

The Municipality of North Middlesex appealed two decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal had struck the Municipality's Notice of Constitutional Question and refused to grant it public interest standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal correctly applied the law, did not err in principle, and provided compelling reasons.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

The appellants challenged a regulatory decision reducing a power generator's proposed revenue requirements for nuclear compensation costs during a forward test period.

The Court of Appeal held that future compensation costs mandated by existing collective agreements were committed costs, not forecast costs that could simply be managed downward.

The Board acted unreasonably by relying on hindsight and current benchmarking information unavailable when the collective agreements were made, and by failing to conduct a prudence review based on what was known or ought to have been known at the time of the commitments.

The matter was remitted to the Board for rehearing in accordance with those principles.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent transit authority's decision to enter into a contract for diesel multiple units for an air-rail link.

The applicant argued the respondent exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct an electrification feasibility study and improperly accepting ministerial direction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to enter a commercial contract did not constitute a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act as it did not determine any legal rights.

Furthermore, the court held that the respondent acted within its statutory authority under its governing legislation.

Following an appeal, the intervener Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc. sought costs of the appeal.

The intervener had been granted leave to intervene before the Divisional Court on the condition that it would not seek costs and no costs would be awarded against it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request, finding that the intervener was bound by the original order and that allowing it to seek costs after learning the appeal's outcome would be fundamentally unfair to the appellants.

No costs were awarded to the intervener.

The appellants sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision not to report an alleged contravention of the Election Finances Act to the Attorney General, and his decision to register a third party during the 2007 provincial election.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the first decision was not subject to judicial review and the second was moot.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, concluding that the Chief Electoral Officer's actions did not determine legal rights and were analogous to a police officer refusing to lay a charge.

The Court also found no error in the Divisional Court's discretionary decision to dismiss the third-party registration issue on grounds of mootness.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The applicant argued the Director failed to comply with regulatory requirements and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both personal and public interest standing.

In the alternative, the court held that the Director's decision to dispense with strict compliance with notice requirements was reasonable, and the consultation process met the common law requirements of procedural fairness.

On a motion for directions in an application concerning settlement agreements related to the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, the moving parties sought broad documentary production from the federal government.

The court addressed disputes over the scope of relevance and proportionality in documentary disclosure within an application proceeding.

The court held that production must be limited to documents relevant and probative to interpreting the settlement agreements and their alleged ongoing obligations, rejecting requests for expansive historical government policy and legislative background materials.

The court provided guidance on specific document categories, directed the parties to exchange lists of litigation records from prior Canadian and U.S. proceedings, and required further review of settlement negotiation materials.

Directions were also given to narrow issues, schedule cross-examinations, and coordinate related proceedings.

The appellants, including Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) and two unions, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that disallowed $145 million of OPG's forecast nuclear compensation costs for the 2011-2012 test period.

The appellants argued the OEB was required to presume the collective agreements were prudent when entered into and could not use hindsight to assess their reasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OEB was not restricted to a retrospective prudence review for forecast costs and was entitled to consider current market comparators to ensure rates were just and reasonable for consumers.

The court also found the OEB's reasons were adequate and its decision did not violate section 2(d) of the Charter.

The appeal concerned whether retail Internet service providers, when providing end-users with Internet access to requested programming, carry on broadcasting undertakings under the Broadcasting Act.

The court held that the statutory terms, read in light of the Act’s language and policy objectives, do not capture entities that merely provide a transmission mode without selecting, originating, or packaging content.

Prior authorities on transmission and conduit functions were treated as consistent with this interpretation, while precedent involving content control by cable licensees was distinguished.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that access-providing Internet service providers are not broadcasting undertakings in this context.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision not to report an alleged contravention of the Election Finances Act by a third-party advertiser to the Attorney General.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the Chief Electoral Officer's handling of the complaint did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also found the challenge to the third party's 2007 registration to be moot.

The Working Facilities Coalition and Laura Miller, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party, brought a motion to intervene in the application between the PC Ontario Fund and the Chief Electoral Officer.

The court granted the intervention and issued an order based on a revised draft.

The court denied a request for cross-examination on an affidavit filed in support of the motion to intervene, applied the usual costs provisions for interveners, and refused to limit the intervening party's appeal rights.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to deny him costs after the respondents withdrew all claims against him during closing arguments.

The appellant had made two early offers to settle, which were rejected.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle by failing to treat the appellant as prima facie entitled to costs and by ignoring the settlement offers.

The Court awarded partial indemnity costs to the appellant, reduced to reflect some misconduct identified by the trial judge.

The CRTC ordered telecommunications carriers to create deferral accounts from urban residential telephone service revenues.

It later directed that these funds be used to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, expand broadband coverage, and distribute remaining amounts to subscribers as credits.

Bell Canada, TELUS, and consumer groups appealed the CRTC's authority to make these allocations.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the CRTC's creation and use of the deferral accounts was a reasonable exercise of its rate-setting authority under the Telecommunications Act, which requires it to balance the interests of consumers, carriers, and competitors while implementing national telecommunications policy objectives.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitral award.

The board of arbitration had ruled that the employer's policy of random drug testing for safety-sensitive employees, absent reasonable cause, violated the collective agreement's requirement to treat employees with dignity and respect.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Divisional Court erred in applying the patent unreasonableness standard instead of reasonableness, the board's decision was reasonable.

The board did not err by referencing the 'Canadian model' of arbitral jurisprudence, nor did it improperly rely on facts outside the record or amend the collective agreement.