Joël M. Dubois

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, which confirmed an investigator's finding that his complaint against four police officers was unsubstantiated.

The applicant alleged the officers unlawfully demanded identification, unlawfully detained him, and used abusive language.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the Director's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately address the applicant's central arguments regarding the lawfulness of the demand for identification and detention under the Trespass to Property Act, misapprehended video evidence, and failed to address allegations of bias against the investigator.

The matter was remitted for redetermination.

The appellant sought a stay of execution of a possession order pending appeal of a summary judgment decision.

The property was mortgaged to Equitable Bank for $610,000.

The appellant defaulted on payments in September 2023 and failed to comply with a forbearance agreement.

The lower court granted summary judgment for possession and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for stay, finding no serious issue to be tried on appeal, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the stay.

The appellant had admitted default and the mortgage terms clearly permitted the lender to demand full payment and take possession.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) to screen out his police conduct complaint.

The applicant also moved to set aside a motion judge's decision refusing to add certain internal LECA documents to the record of proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the law regarding the scope of the record.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application, concluding that the screening decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Complaints Director reasonably exercised his discretion to consolidate the applicant's complaint with an ongoing statutory review of a related prior complaint.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and deceit, and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved fabricating an anonymous traffic complaint against a known community member, conducting unauthorized database queries, and making false statements during the subsequent investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments, rejection of the appellant's medical defence, and conclusion that the telecommunication recording system was reliable were reasonable.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as falling within the reasonable range given the seriousness of the misconduct.

The public complainants appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer found guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct in relation to the sudden death investigation of an Indigenous man.

The Hearing Officer had ordered an 18-month demotion and cultural competency training.

The complainants argued the officer should be dismissed, citing the public interest, the importance of reconciliation, and region-specific demands regarding anti-Indigenous racism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed all relevant factors, including the public interest and reconciliation, and did not err in concluding that dismissal was not warranted.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from his role as the lead investigator into the sudden death of an Indigenous man, where he prematurely concluded the death was non-criminal and failed to conduct a basic investigation.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable, including the finding that the Appellant's deficient investigation was rooted in racial bias and stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed and the findings and penalty were confirmed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction and that the motion constituted an abuse of process due to a prior Quebec court order concerning share ownership.

The defendants also sought to add Shawn Gascon as a party.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to dismiss the summary judgment motion, finding that the issues of jurisdiction and abuse of process should be properly addressed within the context of the summary judgment motion itself, and that the cited rules (21.01(3)(a) and (d)) did not grant authority to dismiss a motion, only an action.

However, the court granted the defendants' request to add Shawn Gascon as a defendant, deeming him a necessary party to the action.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision demoting her from first-class to third-class constable for one year, followed by one year as second-class constable, after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct relating to her refusal to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates at a hockey arena and subsequent inappropriate social media posts.

The Commission allowed the appeal in part, finding that making her progression through the ranks conditional on the 'concurrence' of her unit commander improperly granted unfettered discretion.

The condition was varied to 'as confirmed by her unit commander'.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, as the Hearing Officer made no errors in principle in weighing the appellant's rehabilitative efforts, expressions of remorse, or the consistency of the disposition.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who was found guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct regarding his investigation into the sudden death of an Indigenous man.

The officer had been demoted for 18 months and ordered to complete cultural competency training.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the appropriate penalty and the consideration of the Indigenous community's perspective were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to re-attend discovery and for the defendants to be present during her examination.

The plaintiff cross-moved to exclude the defendants from her discovery and from each other's discoveries, citing psychological distress.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, affirming the inherent right of parties to attend discoveries.

While not finding exceptional circumstances for full exclusion, the court ordered the plaintiff's examination to proceed via video conference, with the plaintiff and her counsel in one room and the defendants and their counsel in another, to mitigate potential distress.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs thrown away due to the cancellation of the original examinations.

The plaintiff, the Medical Council of Canada, brought an unopposed motion for a partial sealing order in an action alleging the defendants appropriated confidential clinical examination exercises for a preparatory course.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and granted the sealing order to protect the integrity of the examination system, the identity of a whistleblower, personal information of the defendants, and the identities of course participants.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action brought a motion to compel the attendance of a specific store manager for examination for discovery on behalf of the corporate defendants.

The defendants refused to produce the manager, providing medical evidence that she was suffering from terminal cancer and was medically unfit to attend.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants met the heavy onus required to excuse a selected corporate representative from discovery on medical grounds.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of a municipal by-law that disbanded the local police force in favour of contracting with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The applicant argued the municipality breached its duty of procedural fairness during the consultation process and that the decision was tainted by bias and bad faith.

The Divisional Court granted the applicant public interest standing but dismissed the application.

The court held that the municipality's legislative decision required a lower level of procedural fairness, which was met through public meetings, online engagement, and deputations, and found no evidence of bias or bad faith among the municipal councillors.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to examine the defendant, a lawyer who formerly represented the other defendants, as a witness before the hearing of the defendants' pending motion for costs.

The plaintiff sought to question the defendant regarding the timing and quantum of his legal account, which was submitted as evidence in the costs motion.

The court granted the motion, finding the evidence relevant and concluding that the defendants failed to prove the examination would be an abuse of process.

Following the discontinuance of the action, the defendants brought a motion for costs.

In response, the plaintiff filed an affidavit containing correspondence regarding settlement offers.

The defendants brought a motion to strike these paragraphs, arguing they were protected by settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, holding that under Rule 57.01(1), written offers to settle are explicitly contemplated as admissible and relevant factors to be considered on a motion for costs.

The appellants, holding foreign arbitral awards against the Kyrgyz Republic, sought declarations that the Republic owned shares in Centerra Gold Inc. registered to Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, a state-owned corporation.

The applications judge dismissed the applications, finding no evidence of a transfer of rights, express trust, or resulting trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the governing agreement unambiguously established Kyrgyzaltyn as the beneficial owner of the shares and that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by the evidence of intention.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Brockville Police Service Board and Michael Grant.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal converted the upcoming hearing into a preliminary hearing to address the issue of delay and directed the parties to provide submissions and medical evidence regarding whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

The moving party, a professional association, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process or for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, a former member of the association, sued for defamation, conspiracy, and breach of privacy arising from the association's publication of a notice of hearing that included his own complaint against co-workers.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack on the association's unappealed discipline decision.

Furthermore, the court held that the defamation and privacy claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the association was protected by statutory immunity and absolute privilege.

The plaintiffs sought continuation of an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing the defendant’s assets in a civil action alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from more than $1.6 million paid over thirteen years for alternative therapy.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunction.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, noting that the payments were voluntarily made for services provided by an astrologist and medium whose credentials were not misrepresented.

The court accepted an undertaking that the net proceeds from the defendant’s Quebec residence would be held in trust pending further order.

The Mareva injunction was therefore not continued except for the confidentiality provisions.

The appellant police officer appealed two penalty decisions ordering her dismissal from the police service.

The first penalty arose from findings of breach of confidence and discreditable conduct for disclosing confidential accident locations to a tow truck operator and offering to help withdraw a traffic ticket.

The second penalty arose from a finding of deceit for lying to investigators during a compelled interview regarding the first matter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld both dismissal penalties, finding that the hearing officers properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the officer's short employment history, prior discipline, and lack of rehabilitative potential.