Judie Im

The appellant sought to withhold 23 mandate letters delivered by the Premier of Ontario to each minister upon forming government in 2018, claiming exemption under s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as Cabinet records that would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the letters were non-exempt outcomes of the Premier's deliberative process rather than records revealing the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the IPC failed to give meaningful weight to the constitutional conventions of Cabinet confidentiality, the fluid and dynamic nature of the Cabinet decision-making process, and the central role of the Premier within that process.

The Court found the mandate letters were revealing of the substance of Cabinet deliberations, both on their face and when compared against subsequent government action, and that the IPC's narrow interpretation of s. 12(1) was unreasonable.

The appellants, the Attorney General of Canada and the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed a motion judge's decision that the respondents' claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and civil conspiracy were not statute-barred.

The core issue was the application of the "appropriate means" element of the discoverability test under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that it was premature for the respondents to commence their actions until related civil forfeiture proceedings and an appeal of a costs order (which addressed Crown misconduct) were concluded.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the limitation period had not expired.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought an application seeking a declaration that the six-month temporary suspension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic should not be counted in limitation period calculations going forward.

The application was brought against 'Persons Unknown' with no live dispute or adversarial parties.

The court dismissed the application, holding that it is constitutionally inappropriate for the court to render an abstract legal opinion to endorse the executive branch's view of its regulatory efforts without a real dispute between interested parties.

The appellant was arrested by Ontario Provincial Police officers while walking to a counter-protest flag rally, having committed no offence and presenting no threat of violence.

The police relied on a purported common law power to arrest someone acting lawfully in order to prevent an apprehended breach of the peace by others.

Applying the ancillary powers doctrine, the Court held that no such common law power exists: the power is not reasonably necessary because statutory arrest powers already address situations where individuals resist or obstruct officers taking less intrusive measures, and effectiveness of a police action alone cannot justify an arrest if less intrusive means were available.

The Court restored the trial judge's award of damages for battery, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, and found no new trial was warranted on the issue of excessive force because the arrest itself was unlawful.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Divisional Court order that lifted an earlier stay and dismissed their application for judicial review.

The moving parties had been selected in a lottery to apply for retail cannabis store licences but were disqualified by the Registrar for failing to provide an irrevocable letter of credit within five days of notification.

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part test for granting a stay: serious issue to be determined, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

While the court found a serious issue existed and acknowledged potential irreparable harm, it determined that the balance of convenience strongly favoured denying the stay due to interference with government policy, public interest in expanding cannabis retail access, and the fact that the moving parties' position had already been rejected by the Divisional Court.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing an appeal of a trial judgment in a civil action involving allegations of excessive force during arrest.

The respondent sought to avoid paying the costs of the appeal on the basis that the matter constituted public interest litigation.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding that the nature of the proceeding did not fall within the recognized categories of public interest litigation.

The appellants were awarded costs of the appeal in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent was arrested by Ontario Provincial Police officers on May 24, 2009, near Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia while carrying a Canadian flag to participate in a flag-raising rally.

The trial judge found the arrest was unlawful and awarded damages for false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and breach of Charter rights.

On appeal, the majority (Nordheimer and Cronk JJ.A.) found the arrest was lawful as a preventive measure to avoid an imminent breach of the peace, but remitted the case for a new trial on the issue of excessive force.

Huscroft J.A. dissented, finding the arrest was unlawful and that the trial judge's findings should not be disturbed.

The representative plaintiff in a class action regarding pension benefits for employees transferred to Community Care Access Centres moved for settlement approval, fee approval, and an amendment to the class definition.

The plaintiff alleged the government breached a 'no loss' commitment regarding pension benefits.

The court approved the amendment to the class definition to include certain union members.

The court also approved the settlement of $752,500, providing $2,500 per class member, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks, including a limitation period defence.

Class counsel fees up to $75,000 were also approved.

The representative plaintiffs in two certified class actions brought a motion to complete the administration of the settlement, discharge the administrator, and approve a cy-près distribution of the remaining $5,373.74 to a charity.

The court granted the discharge but denied the cy-près distribution.

Applying the principle that cy-près should not be used when direct compensation is practicable, the court ordered the remaining funds to be distributed equally among six class members who had submitted late claims due to mail delivery failures.

Following certification of a class proceeding arising from the collapse of a shopping mall, the court determined the appropriate allocation of costs for the certification motion.

Most defendants did not oppose certification and several entered into settlement agreements regarding costs.

The court distinguished between baseline costs that would have been incurred even if certification had proceeded on consent and additional costs caused by defendants who opposed certification.

The judge concluded that $140,000 represented additional costs attributable to opposition and allocated remaining unpaid costs primarily to the provincial government, whose extensive submissions challenged multiple certification criteria.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 against one defendant and $60,000 against the provincial government, with other amounts accounted for through settlements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action following the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall roof in Elliot Lake, which killed two people and injured dozens.

The proposed class included occupants, tenants, and employees of the mall.

The defendants included the mall owners, builders, engineers, and the Province of Ontario.

The Province opposed certification, arguing it owed no private law duty of care for negligent inspection.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action for negligent inspection against the Province and that all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff, having been found not criminally responsible, was ordered detained at a mental health facility but was instead held in a provincial jail for 50 days due to a lack of hospital beds.

The plaintiff sued the Crown for false imprisonment and Charter breaches.

The Crown moved to strike portions of the Statement of Claim.

The court struck the false imprisonment and Charter damages claims with leave to amend, finding the Crown statutorily immune based on the current pleadings and noting the failure to plead bad faith for Charter damages.

The court allowed the underlying Charter breach claims to proceed.

Two related class proceedings alleged that employees transferred from municipal home‑care providers to Community Care Access Centres suffered pension losses when their OMERS or VON pensions were replaced with HOOPP after a government restructuring of home‑care services.

The plaintiffs advanced claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contractual undertaking against the province.

Following mediation and negotiations, the parties reached a settlement providing $6.5 million for class members, along with amounts for class counsel fees and administration.

The court reviewed the settlement under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and considered the risks of establishing liability and damages, the complexity of actuarial loss calculations, and the absence of objections from class members.

The settlement and proposed class counsel fees were found to fall within a reasonable range and to be in the best interests of the class.

The court determined costs following a motion concerning whether a proceeding could continue as a representative action under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Success on the underlying motion was divided: the moving party succeeded on the central issue that the action could proceed as a representative proceeding meeting the test analogous to certification under the Class Proceedings Act, but the responding parties succeeded on issues including that only individual union members, not the union itself, could act as representative plaintiffs and that particulars were required for a negligent misrepresentation claim.

Applying the factors in Rule 57, including relative success, complexity, and conduct of the parties, the court concluded that the moving party was overall more successful.

The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting divided success and certain pleading deficiencies.