Joshua McBride Hunter

The Attorney General moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a motion judge's order refusing to consolidate a pharmacist's constitutional challenge in the Superior Court with his professional misconduct appeal in the Divisional Court.

The Attorney General sought to have the consolidated proceeding stayed and the constitutional issue remitted to the College's Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law and no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that exceptional circumstances justified allowing the constitutional challenge to proceed in the Superior Court, particularly given the Discipline Committee's inability to grant a general declaration of invalidity.

The applicant, a secondary school student, alleged discrimination based on the respondents' sports eligibility policies after she transferred schools.

She sought to amend her application to increase her claim for damages and add factual allegations regarding her exclusion from a basketball tournament.

The respondents opposed the amendments, arguing prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents as the new allegations were limited and the increased damages claim did not change the nature of the allegations.

A case management conference was ordered to address constitutional issues and hearing logistics.

Following a prior decision granting Rule 21 motions and permanently staying a counter-application, the court addressed costs.

The moving parties sought full indemnity costs, arguing the counter-application contained unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty, illegality, and conspiracy against participants in the Canadian justice system.

The court held that such allegations justified a full indemnity award.

After reviewing the claimed amounts and correcting a minor double-counting issue, the court fixed costs payable forthwith to both moving parties on a joint and several basis against certain self-represented litigants.

The appellants appealed an order permanently staying their Counter Application.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's determination that the Counter Application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the appeal.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Mental Health Legal Committee brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an upcoming appeal concerning the constitutionality of the involuntary detention provisions of the Mental Health Act.

The appellant supported the motions, while the respondent Crown and mental health facility opposed them, arguing the proposed interventions would be duplicative or raise new issues.

The Court of Appeal granted both motions, finding that the proposed interveners had special expertise, would make useful contributions without duplicating the appellant's arguments, and that the new legal arguments raised did not require fresh evidence or cause prejudice to the respondents.

The Attorney General brought a motion to consolidate a Superior Court constitutional application and a Divisional Court appeal regarding the mandatory revocation of a pharmacist's license for professional misconduct.

The Attorney General also sought to remit the constitutional challenge to the Discipline Committee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the constitutional application at first instance.

The court also declined to remit the matter to the Discipline Committee, holding that exceptional circumstances justified early judicial intervention given the Committee's lack of expertise and inability to issue a general declaration of invalidity.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss an application challenging the constitutionality of public funding for Ontario Catholic separate schools.

The applicant argued that such funding violated Charter freedoms and equality rights and sought declarations eliminating or reducing funding for Catholic schools.

The court held that the applicant lacked private interest standing as a taxpayer and declined to grant public interest standing.

Binding Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal jurisprudence confirmed that funding for Catholic separate schools is constitutionally protected under the Constitution Act, 1867 and immune from Charter scrutiny.

The application was dismissed for lack of standing and lack of any reasonable prospect of success.

The moving parties brought Rule 21 motions seeking to stay or dismiss a counter-application alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy involving numerous judges, lawyers, public officials, and institutions.

The applicants alleged systemic corruption, crimes against humanity, and other misconduct within the Ontario justice system, and sought extensive relief including billions of dollars in damages.

The court found the allegations to be patently incredible, scandalous, and incapable of proof, concluding that the proceeding had no reasonable prospect of success and constituted an abuse of process.

Applying Rule 21.01(3)(c) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction to control abusive litigation, the court permanently stayed the counter-application.

The decision emphasized the court’s role in preventing vexatious proceedings from consuming judicial resources.

Former directors and officers of an insolvent corporation sought an order requiring that an environmental remediation claim filed by the provincial environment ministry be adjudicated within ongoing insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

They also sought to stay an appeal proceeding before the Environmental Review Tribunal concerning a director’s order requiring remediation of a contaminated site.

The court held that the statutory scheme under the Environmental Protection Act assigns jurisdiction over appeals of director’s environmental orders to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Given that the insolvency restructuring had effectively concluded and no plan of arrangement would compromise claims against the directors and officers, there was no basis for the insolvency court to assume jurisdiction over the environmental order appeal.

The court rejected arguments based on federal paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity.

The motion was dismissed and the matter left to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions to determine whether a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice could sit outside Ontario to hear a motion concerning a pan-Canadian class action settlement.

The Attorney General of Ontario objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing outside its territorial boundaries.

The court held that where it has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it possesses the inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, which includes the discretion to sit outside the province.

The court found that holding a joint hearing with supervisory judges from British Columbia and Quebec in Alberta was in the interests of justice to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent orders.

The appellant association appealed a decision finding that the process for renewing the appointments of Deputy Judges of the Small Claims Court does not infringe the principles of judicial independence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Valente.

The Court held that a reasonable and well-informed observer would conclude that the Deputy Judges and the Small Claims Court are sufficiently independent, as the renewal discretion rests with senior judicial officers rather than the Executive.

In CCAA proceedings involving a large telecommunications company, the applicants sought authorization to cease environmental remediation work at several contaminated sites and to have regulatory remediation orders treated as claims within the insolvency process.

The provincial environmental regulator argued that its orders imposed regulatory performance obligations rather than monetary claims and therefore should not be stayed by the insolvency proceedings.

The court held that where a debtor is no longer operating and compliance with regulatory orders necessarily requires the expenditure of funds, such orders are in substance financial obligations.

The court concluded that environmental remediation orders relating to pre‑filing contamination constituted claims subject to the CCAA claims process and were stayed by the existing stay of proceedings.

The applicants were authorized to cease remediation activities and environmental claims were directed to be resolved through the established claims procedure.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order prohibiting the respondents from making further motions in the proceedings without leave of a judge, pursuant to Rule 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying matter involved an application for civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, to which the respondents responded with a counter-application seeking four billion dollars and alleging a massive conspiracy.

The court found that the respondents had initiated an endless string of unsuccessful, frivolous, and vexatious motions containing bizarre and scandalous allegations against judges and officials.

Applying the principles for vexatious proceedings, the court granted the motion and ordered costs of $1,500 payable to the Attorney General.

The appellant appealed the denial of a prohibition application, arguing that a Justice of the Peace must be legally trained to conduct a fair trial of provincial offences charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming its previous decisions that legal training is not required and noting that recent legislative changes have further strengthened the qualifications and training of Justices of the Peace.

The applicants, children attending private faith-based schools, challenged Ontario's failure to provide them with special education benefits available in public schools.

They argued this exclusion violated their freedom of religion and equality rights under the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Adler v. Ontario foreclosed the freedom of religion claim.

The court also held that the challenged regulation, O. Reg. 386/99, which provides some health services to private school students, is an ameliorative program under s. 15(2) of the Charter and does not discriminate on the basis of disability.

A secondary claim seeking language therapy under the regulation was also dismissed, with the court finding a rational basis for the province's distinction between speech and language disorders.

The applicant applied for judicial review of the government's response to the recommendations of the Deputy Judges Remuneration Commission.

The Commission had recommended significant increases to the per diem rate for deputy judges.

The government accepted the initial increase for 2005 but rejected the subsequent annual increases, substituting lower increases based on economic conditions and public sector compensation trends.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the government's response met the constitutional standard of rationality as it articulated legitimate reasons based on a reasonable factual foundation and respected the commission process.

The appellant was charged with theft of hydro and marijuana offences, but entered a diversion program under s. 717 of the Criminal Code, accepting responsibility for the acts.

The Attorney General subsequently brought a successful application under the Civil Remedies Act for forfeiture of cash and the net proceeds from the sale of the appellant's house.

On appeal, the appellant raised Charter arguments and challenged the finding that the cash was proceeds of unlawful activity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Charter arguments were subsumed by his acceptance of responsibility in the diversion program, and that there was overwhelming evidence supporting the forfeiture of the cash.

The appellants leased summer resort lots within Rondeau Provincial Park from the Crown.

The leases expressly restricted the use of the premises to recreational purposes and stated that the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 did not apply.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, arguing that the Act bound the Crown by necessary implication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not bind the provincial Crown and that the cottages do not constitute residential units within the meaning of the Act.