Karlson King-tao Leung

The Ministry of the Solicitor General sought judicial review of a Presiding Coroner's interlocutory decision regarding the scope of an upcoming inquest into seven deaths at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Coroner had included issues of correctional programming and staff absenteeism in the scope, and admitted expert evidence on programming.

The Divisional Court held that the challenge to the evidentiary ruling was premature.

On the scope issues, the Court found the Coroner's decision reasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to warrant considering whether programming and staffing were contributing factors to the deaths.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Gregory Paul Hlady, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $5 million in damages for trespass and alleged breaches of agreements related to land management.

The defendants, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and several Ministry of Natural Resources employees, argued that the claims were either satisfied or legally invalid due to public policy.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the physical damage from the trespass had been remediated, the plaintiff's claims regarding broader land management agreements were unrealistic and without legal standing, and any agreement purporting to fetter government discretion would be void.

The court also dismissed claims of harassment, intimidation, and other torts against individual defendants as unsubstantiated.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

This appeal concerned a constitutional challenge by National Steel Car Limited to the costs of Ontario's Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) Program, arguing they constituted an unconstitutional tax disguised as a regulatory charge, primarily intended for economic stimulus.

The appellant contended that the program's true purpose was not related to electricity regulation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, dismissing the appeal.

The court found that the FIT Program's primary purpose was regulatory, aimed at increasing renewable energy generation, improving air quality, planning for future supply needs, and encouraging Indigenous and community participation, with economic stimulus being an incidental, not dominant, characteristic.

The court also affirmed the sufficiency of the application judge's reasons and his assessment of expert witness bias.

The respondents moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by Ontario Place for All Inc. regarding the redevelopment of Ontario Place's West Island.

The respondents argued that the newly enacted Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 exempted the project from the Environmental Assessment Act, making the application moot or bound to fail.

The single judge of the Divisional Court declined to quash the application, finding that the issues raised significant public law concerns regarding governance and environmental protection that warranted consideration by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government for its response to COVID-19 in long-term care homes, asserting claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of Charter s. 7.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care (MLTC) but struck the other claims.

This appeal and cross-appeal challenged that decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appellants' appeal (seeking to certify the struck claims) and the respondent's cross-appeal (seeking to decertify the negligence claim against the MLTC), thereby upholding the motion judge's original certification decision.

This endorsement follows a case conference in a protracted civil litigation.

The plaintiff, Gregory Paul Hlady, brought a four-volume motion record seeking various forms of relief, some of which the court deemed unavailable (e.g., ordering settlement discussions, default judgment where default was previously set aside).

The court issued procedural directions, including deadlines for the plaintiff to amend his motion to seek summary judgment, for both parties to exchange affidavits of documents, and for the defendants to serve their discovery plan.

A further case conference was scheduled to determine next steps in the litigation.

This decision addresses two class actions, Francis v. Ontario and Chandra v. Ontario, concerning administrative segregation of inmates in Ontario correctional facilities.

The court heard motions for approval of a settlement in Chandra and a comprehensive claims protocol (Francis/Chandra Protocol) for both actions.

The Protocol establishes a three-track claims program for distributing aggregate damages and assessing individual claims.

The court granted both motions, finding the settlement and protocol fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, commending counsel for their diligent and exemplary work in pursuing access to justice.

This endorsement concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees in two consolidated proceedings (Johnson et al. v. Ontario and Sabourin v. Ontario) alleging deplorable conditions at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The court approved a settlement of $32,795,400 and class counsel fees of $9,388,207.92, finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the significant litigation risks, the protracted nature of the actions, and the desire for a certain outcome for the thousands of affected class members.

The contingency fee agreements and the requested fees were also deemed fair and reasonable.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action, which sought damages under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for alleged discrimination and obstruction of justice by court staff due to her whistleblower status.

The court, applying Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the Statement of Claim unintelligible, an attempt to relitigate past proceedings, and that court staff are statutorily immune from such claims.

The action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant, Julie Daly, appealed the dismissal of her claim for damages under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other relief against the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and the Crown.

Her claim alleged improper treatment and bias by LTB members during several applications concerning her lease.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the LTB was not a suable entity and the Crown was not vicariously liable for the LTB's actions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, confirming that the LTB is not a suable entity and that the Crown is immune from vicarious liability for judicial acts of quasi-judicial board members acting in good faith under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

National Steel Car Limited challenged Ontario's Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Programs, arguing that the increased electricity costs passed to consumers via the "Global Adjustment" constituted an unlawful, unconstitutional tax.

The applicant contended that the FIT Programs' stated environmental and energy purposes were a "falsehood" and their true aim was economic stimulus, making the levy a "colourable taxation" enacted by regulation rather than statute, violating sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the FIT Programs were not colourable taxation and served legitimate regulatory purposes related to Ontario's electricity system, including promoting renewable energy and economic development.

The court concluded that the levy was properly characterized as an intra vires regulatory charge.

The plaintiff sued the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) and the Crown for alleged breaches of her Charter rights and various torts, seeking damages.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21 to dismiss or strike the claim.

The court granted the motions, finding that the LTB is not a suable entity and that the Crown is not vicariously liable for the actions of independent LTB tribunal members.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The applicant brought an application challenging the validity of the 2018 Toronto municipal election.

The respondent municipalities and provincial government brought motions to strike the application.

Over the course of nearly three years, the applicant failed to file any evidence in support of her application and did not appear at the peremptory hearing of the motions.

The court granted the respondents' unopposed motions and dismissed the application for failure to provide proof.

The appellant sought a panel review of a chambers judge's order dismissing his motion for an extension of time to appeal, and the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The underlying application, dismissed by the lower court, involved unsubstantiated claims of organized crime and personal sabotage.

The Court of Appeal, finding no error in the chambers judge's discretionary decision, affirmed that the appeal was clearly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, dismissing the panel review request and allowing the motion to dismiss the appeal.