3 total
Unsuccessful appellant in municipal election compliance audit appeal spared costs as a public-interest litigant.
Following the dismissal of her appeal regarding municipal election compliance audits, the appellant argued she should not be liable for costs because she was a public-interest litigant.
The respondents sought costs, alleging the appellant targeted them for private reasons related to a local development dispute.
The court found that the appellant was a public-interest litigant who brought the applications in good faith to address matters of public importance regarding campaign finances.
The court dismissed the respondents' claim for costs and ordered all parties to bear their own costs.
Defence granted occupational therapy assessment to respond to plaintiff’s future care claim.
In a personal injury action, the defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend an occupational therapy assessment to address alleged functional limitations and future care costs.
The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that two defence medical examinations had already occurred and that any occupational therapy assessment should be limited to an interview.
The court considered its jurisdiction under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and the developing jurisprudence permitting assessments by non-medical practitioners where reasonably required.
Given that the plaintiff intended to rely on an occupational therapist’s future care cost analysis at trial, fairness required that the defence be permitted to obtain its own functional assessment.
The court concluded that the requested examination, including physical functional testing, was necessary and not unreasonably intrusive.
Compliance audit properly refused despite technical Form 4 breaches.
An elector appealed decisions refusing to order compliance audits of municipal election campaign finances under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.
The applications alleged that candidates received excessive contributions from associated corporations and filed incomplete financial disclosure forms (Form 4).
The court held that receiving excessive contributions is not itself a contravention of the Act provided the candidate returns the funds as soon as possible after becoming aware of the violation.
Although several candidates technically contravened the Act by improperly completing Form 4, the compliance audit committee retained discretion whether to order an audit.
Given that the excessive contributions had already been returned and no further information was likely to emerge, it was reasonable to refuse an audit.
