Kevin Ermil Kemp

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The Town of New Tecumseth sought an injunction to shut down Norman Dallard's ice cream shop, "What's the Scoop," alleging multiple zoning by-law infractions related to external evidence of a home-based business and employee residency.

Dallard contended that the Town was unfairly targeting him and acting unreasonably.

The court found that the Town had established several by-law breaches, particularly concerning unapproved signage, patron-accessible patio furniture, and the business not being entirely contained within the dwelling, as well as exceeding the permitted number of non-resident employees.

However, the court rejected the Town's claim that the business had become the predominant use of the property and dismissed allegations of bad faith or unreasonable targeting by the Town.

Instead of a full injunction to shut down the business, the court ordered specific compliance measures and awarded the Town $7,500 in costs, adjourning the application sine die for future compliance issues.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking disclosure of a deceased individual's federal employment and personnel records, the respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants conceded entitlement to costs but disputed the quantum, arguing that the hourly rate and preparation time claimed were excessive.

The court held that the jurisdictional issues raised in the motion were complex and justified substantial preparation time, though the hours claimed were reduced.

The court fixed costs at a reduced amount and ordered payment within 30 days pursuant to Rule 37.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Estate trustees sought an order compelling the Department of National Defence to produce the deceased’s complete employment and benefits personnel file to investigate the deceased’s capacity to designate a pension death benefit beneficiary.

The court held that the motion was solely for disclosure of personal information held by a federal department and was not brought in the context of an existing action or statutory cause of action.

The Rules of Civil Procedure, the Trustee Act, and the Estates Act did not confer jurisdiction to order such disclosure in these circumstances.

The proper mechanism for obtaining the requested information was through the statutory process under the federal Privacy Act, including a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner and potential review in Federal Court.

The motion was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.