Julian N. Falconer

The applicant sought to withdraw his 2009 human rights application against the Ministry and proceed with his amended 2010 application against both the Ministry and his union.

The respondents consented to the amendment of the 2010 application without prejudice to their positions on the merits.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the 2009 application, allowed the amendment of the 2010 application, and set a schedule for the respondents to file amended responses addressing their preliminary objections.

The families of two deceased First Nations persons and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation sought to challenge the representativeness of the jury rolls for two coroners' inquests, arguing that First Nations persons living on reserves were systematically excluded.

The presiding coroners refused to issue summonses to the director of court operations to inquire into the jury roll preparation.

The Court of Appeal held that coroners have jurisdiction by necessary implication to inquire into the representativeness of a jury roll and to remedy an unrepresentative list.

The Court found sufficient evidence to warrant the summonses, allowed the appeals, and ordered a new inquest into one of the deaths.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing several preliminary matters in a complex human rights proceeding.

The request to amend the style of cause to reflect legal name changes was granted.

The request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy was denied, as it would likely extend the cost and time of the proceeding.

The Hamilton Police Association's request to dismiss the complaints for failure to make out a prima facie case was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding the request for dismissal on the basis of timeliness and ordered immediate compliance with disclosure obligations.

The respondents moved to strike or quash portions of the appellants' Notice of Appeal, specifically a request for a declaration and a ground of appeal relating to justiciability and standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, deferring the jurisdictional issue to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellants' cross-motion to have the appeal case-managed was granted, with costs of the motion awarded to the appellants.

The appellant and a co-accused were jointly tried for first-degree murder.

The co-accused advanced a cut-throat defence and adduced highly prejudicial bad character evidence against the appellant, including statements that the appellant had killed before.

The appellant was convicted and the co-accused was acquitted.

On appeal, the appellant argued the bad character evidence was inadmissible and the jury instructions regarding its use were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was admissible but found the trial judge erred by failing to provide adequate positive and negative instructions on how the jury could use it.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso, concluding that the evidence of the appellant's participation in the murder was so overwhelming that a properly instructed jury would inevitably have convicted him.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Superintendent appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking the registration of a private career college.

The Divisional Court had found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the adjudicator's statement that the self-represented principal was 'misleading the Tribunal' and her irrelevant questioning about his possible ties to a terrorist organization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of bias, rejecting the argument that the bias claim was waived, and affirming that a new hearing was the appropriate remedy despite the strength of the Superintendent's case.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and record of offences regarding his treatment at the Toronto Jail.

He subsequently commenced a civil action against the respondent Ministry seeking damages for negligence and Charter breaches based on the same factual allegations of failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal held that the applications were barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant was effectively claiming the equivalent of damages under section 46.1 of the Code in his civil action.

The applications were dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's refusal to recuse himself from a police disciplinary hearing.

The Commissioner alleged the adjudicator's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondents cross-appealed, arguing the adjudicator should have been named as a respondent and the Commissioner lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the adjudicator's conduct did not meet the high threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias and the procedural issues raised in the cross-appeal were without merit.

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by two coroners refusing to issue a summons to a government official to testify about the composition of the jury roll in the Thunder Bay district, specifically regarding the representation of First Nations individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that coroners have no statutory authority under the Coroners Act to inquire into or remedy the process used by the sheriff to compile the jury roll under the Juries Act.

The court found no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice in the coroners' refusals.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal upholding the revocation of their registration as a private career college.

The appellants argued that the adjudicator's comments and questions during the 25-day hearing created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court found that the adjudicator's interventions, including accusing the self-represented appellant of misleading the tribunal and improperly questioning him about ties to a terrorist organization, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a re-hearing.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued it should be exempt from costs as a public interest litigant.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicant had a material interest in the proceeding, as success would have halted an underlying police disciplinary hearing and an abuse of process motion against the applicant.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $33,434.93.

The applicant, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, sought a stay of a coroner's inquest into the death of an aboriginal youth pending an application for judicial review.

The judicial review challenged the Coroner's refusal to issue a summons to a government official regarding the representativeness of First Nations people on the jury roll under the Juries Act.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding that the representativeness of the jury roll raised a serious issue, that proceeding with a potentially unrepresentative jury could cause irreparable harm to public confidence, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review to prohibit an adjudicator from continuing to hear a police discipline matter, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondents moved to quash the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the respondents were properly named.

On the merits, the Court reviewed several instances of the adjudicator's conduct, including remarks about wasted time, rulings on disclosure of counsel's notes, and comments regarding the timing of the recusal motion and the involvement of the Attorney General.

The Court concluded that, viewed contextually and cumulatively, the adjudicator's actions and remarks did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Commissioner of the OPP sought to stay a disciplinary hearing pending an application for judicial review based on a reasonable apprehension of bias by the adjudicator.

A motion judge denied the stay, finding the Commissioner lacked standing and failed to meet the test for a stay.

On review, the Divisional Court set aside the motion judge's order, holding that the Commissioner has standing to seek judicial review on procedural fairness grounds and that the proper test for a stay was met, as irreparable harm would result from continuing a hearing tainted by an apprehension of bias.

The stay was granted and the respondents' cross-motion to quash the application was dismissed.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to uphold the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy without adequate notice or a phase-in period, effectively locking producers into the market and causing significant financial losses.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments to the appellants.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police moved to stay a disciplinary proceeding against two senior officers, alleging bias by the Adjudicator.

The motion was brought during an abuse of process hearing while the Commissioner was testifying.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Adjudicator's comments did not demonstrate bias but rather frustration with the prosecution's conduct.

The Court also noted that the Commissioner likely lacked standing to seek judicial review of a decision made by his own delegate in the disciplinary process.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy immediately without adequate notice or consultation, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to manage their business affairs.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments collected from the appellants.

The applicant, sought by the United States for the attempted murder of a police officer in 1969, applied for judicial interim release pending his extradition appeal and the Minister's surrender decision.

The applicant had previously breached bail twice in the US and lived in Canada under a false identity for 30 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that despite a comprehensive supervision plan, the applicant posed a significant flight risk that was not adequately mitigated.

The appellants, police officers and a police services board, were wholly successful on appeal in an action brought by the respondent regarding her treatment in police custody.

The appellants sought costs of $150,000 for all levels of court.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs to the successful appellants, finding that the case raised complex issues of general public importance regarding police duties to detainees.

Given the public interest nature of the litigation and the respondent's severe financial hardship, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The respondent was detained in a police holding cell and attempted to hang herself using her brassiere.

Police officers forcibly removed her clothing and, when she refused to move into the view of a video camera, handcuffed her to the cell bars while naked.

The trial judge dismissed her action for negligence, assault, and Charter breaches, finding the police acted reasonably and in accordance with policy.

The Divisional Court ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge failed to consider her dignity and privacy interests.

The Court of Appeal allowed the police officers' appeal and restored the trial judge's dismissal, holding that the trial judge did not ignore the evidence regarding her dignity and privacy, and that there was no palpable and overriding error.