Justin Safayeni

The moving parties brought a motion to reopen their appeal after the Ontario government passed legislation repealing the statutory provisions at issue.

The moving parties argued that the repeal was an attempt to evade constitutional scrutiny and render the remitted rehearing moot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that it was premature to conclude the remitted issues were moot, as the application judge retains discretion to hear the matter.

The Court emphasized that the application judge has the institutional advantage to make the necessary factual findings on the expanded Charter claims.

The applicant, an American web-based videoconference provider, sought judicial review of Ontario Health's refusal to verify its platform as a 'Verified Virtual Visit Solution', which prevented Ontario physicians from billing OHIP for services rendered using the platform.

Ontario Health required the applicant to store data in Canada, asserting the platform collected personal health information.

The Divisional Court held that the data residency requirement and the related OHIP payment rule were not ultra vires.

While the court found Ontario Health's conclusion that the applicant collected personal health information to be unreasonable, it ultimately dismissed the application because the applicant failed to meet other mandatory technical and privacy assessment requirements.

This is a costs decision following the successful application by the applicants to set aside an arbitral award and associated costs award on grounds of procedural unfairness.

The applicants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $49,636.38 against Dr. Frank Fowlie.

The court awarded the full amount requested, finding the applicants were entirely successful and the quantum was fair and reasonable.

The court rejected Dr. Fowlie's argument that he should not bear costs as he was not responsible for the arbitrator's conduct, noting that he actively opposed the application and did not challenge the procedural ruling during the arbitration.

The court also rejected any suggestion that Wrestling Canada Lutte should share in the costs award.

The court considered whether, at a case conference, an associate judge has jurisdiction to determine if the plaintiff may examine a third party in the main action under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought to examine Andrew Clark, a third party, but the associate judge found that such a determination would constitute interlocutory relief, which is beyond the jurisdiction of an associate judge at a case conference.

The request was denied, and the plaintiff was directed to bring a motion if it wished to pursue the matter.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitration award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator’s mid-hearing switch from an oral to a written process, and refusal to consider their closing submissions, constituted unequal and unfair treatment.

The Court found that the applicants were denied their statutory rights to an oral hearing and to equal treatment, and set aside the award, remitting the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitration panel.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of anti-SLAPP motions by the three defendants.

The court addresses the scale and quantum of costs, the issue of duplication between legal teams, and the entitlement of a self-represented litigant to costs.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the defendants, finding the requests fair and reasonable, and declines to award compensation to the self-represented defendant for his own time.

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

The appellant, a non-profit organization, sought public interest standing to bring nine applications for judicial review challenging decisions made by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the applications, finding the appellant lacked standing.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue as they merely challenged individual exercises of discretion rather than statutory interpretation.

The Court also agreed that the applications were not a reasonable and effective means to bring the issues before the courts, as they would conflict with the statutory scheme and its strict confidentiality provisions.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for breaching an undertaking to permanently resign and cease practicing chiropody.

Despite the undertaking, the Member continued to practice, use the restricted title of 'Dr.', and hold himself out as a podiatrist.

The Member admitted to the allegations in an uncontested hearing.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, and costs of $23,000.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The parties settled the costs of the appeal, agreeing that the respondent would pay the appellants an all-inclusive amount of $75,000.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by seven youth challenging the constitutionality of Ontario's greenhouse gas emission reduction target and plan.

The application judge had dismissed their claim, characterizing it as seeking positive rights.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error, clarifying that the case concerned whether Ontario's voluntarily assumed statutory obligation to combat climate change was Charter compliant under ss. 7 (life, liberty, security of the person) and 15 (equality).

The matter was remitted for a new hearing to determine if the Target and Plan violated the Charter.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, a former Complaints and Appeals Officer for a national sports organization, sued the defendants over emails they sent criticizing his handling of complaints and his suitability for the role.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest regarding athlete safety.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as justification and qualified privilege.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of serious harm caused by the expressions that would outweigh the public interest in protecting them.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Provincial Police concluding that the misconduct of two officers, one of whom struck and killed the applicant's spouse with a police vehicle, was 'not of a serious nature'.

The Divisional Court held that the OPP was required to provide written reasons justifying its conclusion, given the severity of the incident and the statutory framework.

The court found the OPP's decision unreasonable because it merely listed generic factors without explaining how they applied to the specific officers.

The decision was quashed and remitted for a fresh determination.

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 defendant in a defamation action brought a motion for the production and preservation of documents from non-parties, as well as a sealing order and publication ban regarding the identities and medical information of two non-party insured individuals.

The court granted the unopposed production orders.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court granted the sealing order and publication ban for one insured whose identity remained anonymous, but dismissed the request for the other insured whose identity was already public and where the scope of the requested health information ban was too vague.

The applicants, who were unsuccessful in their constitutional challenge regarding Ontario's response to climate change, and the respondent, who successfully defended the application, both sought costs.

The respondent sought $45,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicants sought $96,999.79 or, alternatively, no costs.

The court applied the factors for public interest litigation and declined to award costs to the successful respondent, noting the applicants had no pecuniary interest, the issues were of existential public importance, and the respondent had superior capacity to bear costs.

The court also declined to award costs to the unsuccessful applicants, finding this was not one of the rare cases justifying such an award.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The College alleged that the Member, a chiropodist, engaged in sexual abuse and professional misconduct by having inappropriate personal and sexual communications with a patient and engaging in inappropriate touching during an unscheduled clinic visit.

The Discipline Committee found the patient's evidence to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and evasiveness during cross-examination.

Conversely, the Member's evidence was clear, consistent, and supported by clinical notes and clinic security protocols.

The College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities, and the allegations were dismissed.

Dr. Kustka, a family physician, and several of her patients brought applications for judicial review challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to investigate her COVID-19 practices, including prescribing ivermectin and providing mask exemptions.

The patients challenged the College's ability to access their medical records, arguing it violated their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' applications for lack of public and private interest standing.

The Court dismissed the physician's applications as premature, noting that challenges to the appointment of investigators should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also found the College's interim restrictions and investigation decisions were reasonable.

The applicants, seven young Ontarians, brought an application challenging Ontario's greenhouse gas reduction target (the "Target") set under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018.

They argued that the Target, which aims to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, is unconstitutional and violates their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The court found that the issues were justiciable, as they involved a challenge to specific state action and legislation.

However, the court dismissed the application, concluding that while climate change poses a severe threat and disproportionately impacts youth, the Target itself does not violate the Charter.

The court held that section 7 does not impose positive obligations on the state to enact more stringent environmental policies, and the Target is not arbitrary or grossly disproportionate.

Furthermore, the court found no section 15 violation, as the disproportionate impacts are caused by climate change itself, not the impugned legislation, and the Charter does not impose a positive obligation to remedy social inequalities.

The appellant, Hummel Properties Inc., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its application to quash interim control by-laws enacted by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The by-laws prohibited the subdivision of land, including condominium creation, and were challenged on grounds of illegality (not relating to "land use" under the Planning Act, infringing s. 38(7) by applying a second interim control by-law, and illegal process) and bad faith.

The Court of Appeal found that the by-laws were illegal because they purported to control land division, not land use, and violated s. 38(7) by applying a second interim control by-law to the same land.

The court also found errors in the application judge's assessment of the process and bad faith.

The appeal was allowed, the by-laws quashed, and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for a trial on damages for negligent misrepresentation and misfeasance in public office.