Julian N. Falconer

The Catholic entities appealed an order allowing residential school survivors to archive their Independent Assessment Process (IAP) documents with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation without the consent of alleged perpetrators.

Canada cross-appealed, arguing the IAP documents were government records subject to federal archiving and privacy legislation and could not be destroyed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that only claimants have the right to decide whether to archive their documents.

The Court further held that the IAP documents are not government records because they are not under government control, and upheld the supervising judge's order to destroy the documents after a 15-year retention period to protect the claimants' privacy and confidentiality.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's appeal for failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the thirty-day statutory period under the Police Services Act.

The complainant faxed the Notice of Appeal on the thirtieth day, but under section 96(2) of the Act, faxed documents are deemed received on the following day.

The Commission held that the appeal was served on the thirty-first day and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed as untimely.

The applicants sought certiorari quashing a summary conviction trial judge’s interlocutory order requiring them to personally attend their trial rather than appear only by counsel.

The underlying prosecution involved charges relating to possession and sale of unstamped cigarettes under federal and provincial tobacco legislation.

The applicants argued the trial judge fettered his discretion by relying on a local practice requiring accused persons to attend and that the order infringed Charter protections against arbitrary detention.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge exercised a broad discretion under s. 800(2) of the Criminal Code and considered both general and case‑specific factors.

No jurisdictional error was established and, in any event, the discretionary remedy of certiorari would not be granted.

The applicants, suppression firefighters, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their age discrimination applications.

The applicants challenged the mandatory retirement age of 60, arguing the employer failed to accommodate them by not engaging in individualized testing for cardiac risk.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably relied on established precedent that mandatory retirement for firefighters is a bona fide occupational requirement, and that the applicants failed to provide the necessary individualized medical evidence of extremely low cardiac risk to trigger the narrow exception for accommodation.

The appellants brought motions to stay the construction of two wind turbine projects pending their appeals of the Environmental Review Tribunal's decisions upholding the Renewable Energy Approvals.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Environmental Protection Act to stay the Director's approvals directly, treating the motions as requests for interlocutory injunctions.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellants would not suffer irreparable harm prior to the appeal hearing, as the turbines would not be operational by then.

The motions were dismissed.

Following earlier decisions concerning requests for directions in litigation arising from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the court had previously awarded costs payable by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to Independent Counsel.

After that decision was released, Canada delivered additional submissions asserting it should not be liable for costs, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission asserted a right to file further reply submissions.

The court held that the additional submissions were unnecessary and procedurally improper because the parties had already been given the opportunity to address costs.

The judge confirmed that the earlier costs decision would not be altered and refused to permit further reply submissions.

Following earlier reasons concerning Requests for Direction under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement regarding the treatment of Independent Assessment Process documents, the court addressed costs.

Independent counsel who represented the interests of claimants sought full or substantial indemnity costs against the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The court held that although the commission’s request for directions was reasonable and undertaken pursuant to its mandate, independent counsel had effectively acted as amicus curiae and provided helpful submissions on behalf of claimants.

Considering the partial success of the parties and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed, the court exercised its discretion to award reduced partial indemnity costs.

Requests for directions were brought regarding the disposition of documents generated in the Independent Assessment Process established under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The moving parties sought guidance on whether the documents, which contained highly sensitive narratives of abuse and personal information, should be archived or destroyed.

The court held that the documents were confidential, subject to the implied undertaking and the law of breach of confidence, and were created for a private adjudicative process.

Interpreting the settlement agreement and exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the class action settlement, the court concluded the documents must ultimately be destroyed after a retention period.

During the retention period, claimants must be notified of their option to consent to the transfer of redacted records to the National Research Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

This appeal and cross-appeal addressed whether Ontario’s SIU framework permits police officers involved in fatal incidents to consult counsel before completing duty notes.

The majority held the regulatory scheme does not permit consultation with counsel at the note-making stage, emphasizing transparency, public confidence, legislative history, and the duty to prepare independent, complete notes.

It rejected even limited pre-note legal consultation as inconsistent with the scheme’s objectives, while confirming officers may consult counsel after filing notes.

The cross-appeal was allowed, overturning the Court of Appeal’s allowance of basic legal advice prior to notes.

Dissenting reasons on cross-appeal would have preserved a narrow right to basic legal advice that excluded drafting assistance.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for partial summary judgment in an Ontario action seeking to enforce German submissions to compulsory enforcement arising from guarantees of bank loans.

The central issue was whether those instruments were foreign judgments for Ontario limitations purposes or were governed by German substantive law under conflict of laws principles.

The court held the instruments were not German judgments and that German law supplied the applicable 30-year limitation period, with the result that the claims were not statute-barred.

The court also rejected the argument that the motion judge had recast the pleadings and dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence.

The United States of America sought the extradition of the respondent for the offence of child luring.

The perpetrator communicated with a 17-year-old female online and coerced her into engaging in sexual activity with her 13-year-old sister over a Skype video call.

The communications were traced to an IP address assigned to the respondent at the relevant time.

The court found that the IP subscriber information provided a sufficient foundation for a reliable inference that the respondent was the perpetrator, satisfying the test for committal under the Extradition Act.

The application for committal was granted.

The appellant filed a police misconduct complaint under the Police Services Act and commenced a parallel civil action for damages arising from the same arrest.

After the disciplinary hearing officer found the officers not guilty, the respondents successfully moved to strike the civil claims on the basis of issue estoppel.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 4-3 decision, allowed the appeal, holding that while no public policy rule should categorically exclude police disciplinary hearings from issue estoppel, the Court of Appeal erred in its discretionary analysis by failing to consider the significant differences in purpose, scope, and stakes between the two proceedings, the parties' reasonable expectations, and the unfairness of permitting the Chief of Police's designate's decision to exonerate the Chief from civil liability.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission sought directions regarding Canada's obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to provide documents archived at Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and documents relating to the TRC's legacy mandate.

Canada moved to strike the TRC's request, arguing the TRC lacked capacity and standing, and moved to strike several affidavits.

The court held that the TRC had capacity to bring the proceedings and declined to strike most of the affidavits.

On the substantive issues, the court ruled that Canada's obligation to provide relevant documents extends to those archived at LAC, but that the TRC's legacy mandate does not include evaluating Canada's policy responses, meaning Canada need not produce documents relating to those responses.

Following approval of an infant settlement, the plaintiffs sought clarification of an earlier endorsement regarding alternative relief requested in their motion.

The moving parties had asked, in the alternative to sealing the record, that all references to the settlement amount be redacted from the motion materials and judgment pursuant to s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court confirmed that it had been aware of the request but declined to grant it.

The judge held that the parties’ agreement to keep settlement terms confidential was not sufficient to justify either sealing the file or redacting the settlement figures.

The evidentiary record did not support restricting public access to the court record.

The applicant, a correctional officer, filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, including racist hate mail.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the GSB proceeding dealt with earlier allegations from 2005-2009, whereas the current application concerned new allegations from April 2010 onwards.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging age discrimination regarding the implementation of mandatory retirement at age 60 in the City of Mississauga Fire Service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications on consent, granted the Association intervenor status in two files where it was not named as a respondent, and established a schedule for further written submissions on the respondents' request for summary hearings in light of a recent Tribunal decision.

The applicants, family members of individuals whose deaths were investigated by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), sought a declaration that police officers involved in SIU investigations are not entitled to legal assistance in preparing their notes.

The application judge dismissed the application on grounds of standing, justiciability, and mootness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the applicants had public interest standing and the issues were justiciable and not moot.

Exercising its jurisdiction to decide the substantive issues, the Court held that the Police Services Act and the SIU Regulation do not permit police officers to have a lawyer vet or assist in the preparation of their notes, though they may obtain basic legal advice regarding their rights and duties provided it does not delay note completion.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Coroner refusing to issue a summons for the production of videos depicting interactions between correctional staff and the deceased, Ashley Smith.

The Divisional Court found that the Coroner applied an incorrect and overly stringent test by requiring a demonstrated 'nexus' between the videos and the death, rather than assessing whether the evidence was 'material' to the purposes of the inquest.

The Court quashed the Coroner's decision and remitted the issue for reconsideration, holding that the denial of access to potentially relevant evidence constituted a breach of natural justice.

During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.

The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.

Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.

The applicants, who were parties to an inquest into the death of an inmate, sought judicial review of a Coroner's decision refusing to order the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to produce certain video recordings.

In preparation for the judicial review, the applicants served a summons on the Commissioner of the CSC, requiring him to bring the videos to an examination so they could be viewed by the Divisional Court.

The CSC brought a motion to quash the summons.

The court granted the motion and quashed the summons, finding that the videos were clearly irrelevant to the issues on judicial review, which were limited to whether the Coroner acted unfairly or exceeded her jurisdiction.

The court noted that the record already contained sufficient descriptions of the videos' contents for the purpose of the judicial review.