Joshua Tallman

The appellants, the Chief of the Durham Regional Police Service and the Durham Regional Police Services Board, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission had appointed an Administrator to oversee disciplinary proceedings, promotions, and secondary employment within the Service, citing an emergency and a crisis of confidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission had the jurisdiction to make the interim order without notice or a hearing under section 24(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Court held that the decision was reasonable, did not breach procedural fairness, and did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) sought certiorari to quash a Youth Court decision that denied TCHC access to a young person's (R.V.) criminal justice records.

TCHC intended to use these records to commence eviction proceedings against R.V. and his family at the Landlord and Tenant Board on grounds of "illegality" and "community safety." The Youth Court had denied access, prioritizing R.V.'s privacy, rehabilitation, and reintegration under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

By the time the certiorari application reached the Superior Court, R.V. had withdrawn from the proceedings, and TCHC had decided not to pursue eviction, rendering the matter moot.

The Superior Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no persisting adversarial context, no significant public interest that would justify hearing a hypothetical case, and that the issue of "desirable in the interest of the proper administration of justice" under s.119 of the YCJA was fact-driven and best left to the Youth Court's expertise.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the Defendant was granted leave to amend its Statement of Defence late in the proceedings.

The Defendant sought costs for this motion, which the Plaintiff opposed, arguing that costs should instead be awarded to the Plaintiff to compensate for the prejudice caused by the late amendment.

The court, exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, decided not to award costs for or against either party for the leave motion, finding the Plaintiff's opposition to be reasonable.

The plaintiffs and the defendant police officer provided written submissions on costs following the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs' submissions were late, but the court found them timely under the Rules of Civil Procedure as the deadline fell on a weekend.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the motion, the court expressed concern over the timing of the new, more serious allegations of battery and sexual assault, which the defendant argued were an attempt to circumvent the Limitations Act.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs immediately to the successful plaintiffs, instead fixing costs at $6,500 payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add causes of action for battery and sexual assault, and sought a publication ban to protect their identities.

The defendant police officer opposed the timing of the amendment, arguing his outstanding summary judgment motion should be heard first, and sought costs thrown away.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend immediately, finding no non-compensable prejudice, and ordered a publication ban due to the sexual nature of the allegations.

The court also awarded the defendant $2,000 in costs thrown away for the need to redraft his pleadings.

Class counsel moved for an order approving the form and content of the notice of certification and a litigation timetable in a class proceeding concerning former residents of Ontario Training Schools.

The defendant consented to both orders.

The court approved the litigation timetable and the notice of certification, subject to specific modifications regarding the publication list and the development of balanced training materials for independent legal advice providers.

The court emphasized the need for clear, balanced advice on opting out.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, applied for a Rowbotham order after being denied Legal Aid.

The Crown had previously offered to fund his defence, but the applicant refused due to objections to two proposed terms.

The applicant sought a conditional stay and an order imposing specific funding terms.

The court granted the conditional stay, finding the applicant met the Rowbotham criteria since no funding arrangement was currently in place.

However, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to impose specific funding terms absent a Charter breach.

The court also granted a limited sealing order over the settlement communications and the terms of the Crown's offer, finding they were protected by settlement privilege.