Justin Safayeni

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing nine judicial review applications on the basis that it lacked public interest standing.

The Divisional Court panel found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the test for public interest standing.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue transcending specific individual interests and that judicial review was not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents $25,000, all-inclusive, for the costs of the appeal.

The decision follows an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellants, a Township and its officials, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion seeking to dismiss a defamation and misfeasance in public office action brought by the respondents, owners of a community newspaper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the motion judge's application of the anti-SLAPP test under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the weighing of public interest in expression versus harm to reputation, and the assessment of available defences.

The court affirmed that the motion judge correctly applied the legal tests and that anti-SLAPP motions are not the forum for definitive determinations of complex defences.

The CBC made a freedom of information request for mandate letters sent by the Premier of Ontario to Cabinet ministers.

The Cabinet Office refused disclosure, claiming the letters were exempt under the Cabinet records exemption in s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the letters did not reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General's appeal, holding that the Commissioner's interpretation of s. 12(1) and its application to the mandate letters were reasonable.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Both parties sought costs.

The defendants claimed over $250,000 for eight different court steps, arguing the self-represented plaintiffs caused unnecessary legal expenses.

The plaintiffs sought $30,000 for successfully defending the motion.

The court awarded the defendants $34,000 for various interlocutory steps, finding the plaintiffs' litigation strategy was disproportionate and caused unnecessary expenses.

The court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs for the s. 137.1 motion, applying the statutory presumption against costs for successful responding parties due to their conduct.

The Ontario Integrity Commissioner brought a motion to quash nine applications for judicial review commenced by Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch sought to challenge decisions made by the Commissioner under the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 regarding investigations into alleged lobbyist wrongdoing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that Democracy Watch lacked public interest standing because the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue and were not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issues before the courts, as they conflicted with the private interests and statutory privacy protections of the investigated lobbyists.

Following the dismissal of the moving party's motion to strike, the successful responding parties sought partial indemnity costs of $36,269.19.

The moving party argued for a maximum of $15,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the public interest nature of the litigation, the complexity of the constitutional issues, and the reasonable delegation of work among counsel.

The court found the requested amount fair and reasonable and awarded costs of $36,269.19 to the responding parties.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision declining to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 48.14 and instead imposing a timetable.

The underlying action involved a claim for indemnification from escrow funds following a share purchase agreement.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master applied the correct two-part test from Kara v. Arnold, properly considered the contextual factors including the defendants' own delay in filing a statement of defence, and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the plaintiff had an adequate explanation for delay and the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The applicant broadcaster brought an application for copyright infringement against a political party for using short clips of its news broadcasts and leadership debates in political attack ads and social media posts.

The Court found that the taking constituted a substantial part of the works, but that the use was protected under the fair dealing exception for the purpose of criticism.

The application for declaratory relief was dismissed with costs.

The respondent (moving party) brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicants (responding parties) in the agreed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 30, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $4,000 to the responding parties.

The applicants, seven youths residing in Ontario, brought an application challenging Ontario's cancellation of the Climate Change Act and its newly-enacted greenhouse gas reduction target under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018.

They alleged that the target violates their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Ontario brought a motion to strike the application under Rule 21, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was not justiciable, was based on unprovable speculations, depended on positive obligations, and that the applicants lacked standing for future generations.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the target and plan are reviewable by the courts, the claims are capable of scientific proof, the matter is justiciable as it challenges specific government conduct, the issue of positive obligations should be decided on a full evidentiary record, and the applicants meet the test for public interest standing at this preliminary stage.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Integrity Commissioner's refusal to issue public determinations regarding the conduct of several public servants under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked public interest standing because the statutory scheme does not include a public complaints mechanism and is strictly employment-oriented.

The court also held that the application did not raise a justiciable issue, as the Commissioner's functions under the Act relate to private employment relationships and do not involve the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review.

The plaintiff was successful on a status hearing motion to prevent the dismissal of its action for delay.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $35,000, while the unsuccessful defendants sought $30,225.24, arguing the motion was only necessary due to the plaintiff's inaction.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, finding it was reasonable for them to compel the plaintiff to show cause and noting the plaintiff's primary explanation for the delay was inaccurate.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision ordering the disclosure of the Premier's mandate letters to Cabinet ministers.

The Cabinet Office opposed disclosure, claiming the letters were exempt under the Cabinet records exemption in s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the IPC's decision.

The court found it was reasonable for the IPC to conclude that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosing the mandate letters would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

Case management endorsement setting the schedule and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of a report by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner concerning Premier Doug Ford.

The court directed that the hearing proceed by video conference and established deadlines and formatting requirements for electronic document filing.

The court issued a case management endorsement providing procedural directions ahead of a scheduled hearing.

The parties were directed to agree on time allocations for oral argument, file agreements or materials regarding costs, and submit counsel sheets.

The court also noted that an amended version of a prior endorsement would be released to correct unintended repetition and add a neutral citation.

A case management endorsement setting out directions for a virtual hearing via Zoom before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court provided a schedule for the service of materials and detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums using a password-protected drop box.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board imposing a $155,000 administrative penalty for contraventions of the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 related to the marketing of energy contracts.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the Board lost jurisdiction because the penalty was imposed outside the two-year limitation period in s. 112.5(2) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the new limitation period issue, finding it would benefit from the specialized tribunal's interpretation and required factual findings.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's arguments that the Board misapprehended evidence and improperly found systemic training deficiencies, concluding there were no errors of law or jurisdiction.

The applicant estate sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying survivor benefits following the death of a firefighter from a heart attack.

The Tribunal found that the statutory presumption for firefighters did not apply because the deceased had not attended a 'fire scene' within 24 hours of the heart attack, and that the injury did not otherwise arise out of and in the course of employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decision and its subsequent refusal to reconsider were reasonable and supported by the evidence and applicable policies.