Kiel Ardal

The applicant sought a declaration of beneficial ownership of a Toronto Island land lease property based on a resulting trust, after his deceased brother, Bruce, held legal title.

The brothers had jointly inherited the rights, but Bruce took legal title for mortgage purposes due to the applicant's credit.

They continued to live together and share expenses.

The Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust Corporation, a respondent, opposed the resulting trust finding due to its impact on the property register's integrity, suggesting a non est factum argument instead.

The court found no evidence for non est factum but determined that the 1996 transfer was for administrative convenience, not a gift, and a resulting trust arose from the common intention to be joint owners.

The court declared the applicant the beneficial owner and ordered register changes.

No costs were awarded.

The respondent non-profit housing cooperative requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it failed to adequately address serious and persistent harassment directed at the applicants.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal erred by applying the reasonableness standard from employment jurisprudence without accounting for the unique nature of volunteer-run housing cooperatives.

The respondent also challenged the remedial orders, which included monetary compensation and requirements to post the decision and notify members.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the reconsideration request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and noting that the respondent failed to propose an alternative legal standard.

However, the Tribunal removed the requirement to post the decision on the cooperative's bulletin board, finding it redundant given the requirement to send notices directly to members.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

During the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, the appellant and his friends were walking down a public street intending to demonstrate in support of animal rights.

They were stopped by police officers who demanded to search their bags as a condition of proceeding further.

The appellant refused and was grabbed and pushed by an officer.

The Court of Appeal held that the police conduct was not authorized by the common law ancillary powers doctrine, as it was not reasonably necessary to preserve the peace.

The court found that the police violated the appellant's common law right to travel unimpeded and his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court also held that the officer committed the tort of battery, as he lacked lawful authority and the contact was unnecessary.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding housing accommodation requested an order to bifurcate the hearing into separate liability and remedy stages.

The respondent argued that the applicants sought unusual and complex remedies and that most witnesses would only testify regarding remedy.

The applicants opposed the request, arguing that all their witnesses would testify on liability and that bifurcation would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested remedies arose from the liability issue of whether the respondent adequately addressed the alleged harassment, and that bifurcation would not result in a more expeditious hearing.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board arising from mass detentions during the 2010 G20 summit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The court certified two separate class actions: one for five location-based subclasses who were allegedly arbitrarily detained by police cordons, and another for individuals held at a specially created detention centre.

The applicants requested to amend their human rights applications to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondent co-operative announced they could not run for the Board of Directors due to their ongoing applications.

The respondents did not oppose the request but asked for particulars regarding the applicants' intentions to run for the Board.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, directing the applicants to provide the requested particulars.

Nine applicants in consolidated housing discrimination applications filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOPs) to amend their applications to increase the amount of monetary compensation claimed.

The respondents consented to one applicant's request but opposed the others.

The Tribunal granted all the requests, noting that amendments to applications, including remedial claims, are generally permitted prior to the commencement of a hearing, without prejudice to the respondents' position on the merits or appropriateness of the remedies.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

The applicant requested that her human rights application against an individual respondent for alleged discriminatory remarks be consolidated with a fresh application against her housing co-operative for failing to investigate the remarks and for vicarious liability.

The co-operative opposed the consolidation, arguing the applications raised distinct issues and would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and granted the consolidation, finding that the applications raised interrelated facts and issues, and that consolidation would serve the public interest by avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings without causing significant prejudice to the respondents.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to consolidate ten human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing based on the posting of offensive messages.

The respondents also filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate, finding common issues of fact and law and a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Request for Summary Hearing was denied without reasons.