Judie Im

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.

The plaintiffs were beneficial owners of a property held in trust by the defendant Bertrand, who was the registered owner.

Bertrand sold the property to 670 without the plaintiffs' consent and signed a false affidavit to clear executions against his name.

The trial judge found the transfer was a 'fraudulent instrument' under the Land Titles Act, declared it void, and ordered rectification of the register.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred in law.

Bertrand was not a 'fictitious person' and did not forge the transfer, as he was the true registered owner with legal authority to convey the property.

Furthermore, 670 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, protected by s. 62(2) of the Act, which states that describing an owner as a trustee does not constitute notice of a trust.

The appeals by 670 and the Director of Titles were allowed, confirming 670's ownership, while Bertrand's appeal against the findings of fact was dismissed.

The matter was remitted to the trial court to assess damages against Bertrand.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the denial of OHIP coverage for an out-of-country residential treatment program for mental health and substance abuse.

The Board found that equivalent services were available in Ontario and that the appellant would not face a delay resulting in death or medically significant irreversible tissue damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions regarding the essential elements of the treatment and the availability of timely equivalent services in Ontario were reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision made by the Normal Farm Practices and Protection Board regarding its internal processes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that judicial review of interim orders is only available in exceptional circumstances to prevent fragmentation and piecemeal proceedings.

The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the board's final decision.

Costs were awarded to the respondent receiver in the fixed amount of $2,000.

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.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Reconsideration Order.

The IPC had ordered the LCBO to cease collecting the personal information of wine club members when processing special orders, finding the practice contravened s. 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The LCBO argued the IPC's order forced it to violate liquor laws and that the IPC applied an unreasonably strict test for 'necessity' under FIPPA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the IPC's decision was reasonable, the LCBO was exempt from the relevant liquor law prohibitions, and the IPC correctly applied the established legal test for necessity.

Multiple motions arising from five civil proceedings related to the Algo Centre Mall collapse sought transfer of a certified class action to Sault Ste.

Marie, trial together or common case management of related actions, and appointment of a single motions judge.

The court held that opt-out plaintiffs in separate proceedings lacked standing under rule 13.1.02 to seek transfer of the class action, and in any event failed to show that Sault Ste.

Marie was a significantly better venue than Toronto in the interest of justice.

The court further declined relief under s. 107(1) of the Courts of Justice Act because any transfer necessary to enable common case management or trial together would impose substantial cost and inefficiency, particularly given the existing class action case management structure.

Appointment of a rule 37.15 judge was also refused.

The applicants sought judicial review of regulations authorizing a two-year spring bear hunt pilot program in northern Ontario, arguing the regulations were ultra vires and the Minister's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister complied with the Environmental Bill of Rights process, an environmental assessment was not required due to an existing exemption, and the regulations did not conflict with the Criminal Code's animal cruelty provisions.

The court also held that the Minister's decision to implement the pilot project was protected by privative clauses and not subject to judicial review.

The appellants appealed an order granting the Ottawa Police Association a conditional representation order under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action involved 74 police officers who transferred from the OPP to the Ottawa Police Services Board and alleged negligent misrepresentation regarding their pension transfers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 12.08 does not require an action to benefit all members of an association, nor is it limited to collective actions.

The court upheld the motion judge's findings on common issues and preferable procedure, confirming that a conditional order to substitute an appropriate representative plaintiff was permissible.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant had requested security footage and reports from the University of Ottawa regarding an alleged attempted theft of his backpack.

The adjudicator upheld the University's decision to withhold portions of the records, finding that the search was reasonable, there was no obligation to provide certified copies, and the withheld records contained personal information of third parties whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Divisional Court found the adjudicator's decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

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.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

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.

Eleven children's aid societies brought an application for judicial review challenging the Ministry of Children and Youth Services' decisions regarding their funding allocations for the 2009/2010 fiscal year.

The applicants argued that the Minister breached statutory processes, fettered her discretion by mechanically applying a funding model, exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias, and improperly delegated review authority to Regional Directors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation of public funds is a core policy function not subject to judicial review absent bad faith or improper purpose.

The court also found that the delegation of authority was valid and that there was no apprehension of bias or fettering of discretion.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging the vires of Ontario Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act, arguing that its provisions regarding out-of-country medical treatment contravened the Canada Health Act.

The applicant abandoned any constitutional or Charter challenges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, following the precedent in Collett v. Ontario (Attorney General).

The court held that the consequence of failing to satisfy the Canada Health Act criteria is a matter of intergovernmental consultation and within the discretion of the Governor in Council, rendering the issue non-justiciable and the challenge premature.