Kim Twohig

Pharmacy and retailer appellants challenged provincial regulations that barred private-label generic drugs from formulary listing and interchangeable designation.

The Court reaffirmed that delegated legislation is presumed valid and is ultra vires only if inconsistent with statutory purpose or outside delegated authority.

It held the regulations aligned with the legislative scheme aimed at reducing prescription drug costs and promoting transparent pricing while maintaining safety.

The measures were rationally connected to preventing circumvention of rebate and allowance restrictions through affiliated manufacturers.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's proposed wind power project was cancelled by the Ontario government during an election campaign.

The appellant sued for damages, alleging misfeasance in public office, claiming the government acted in bad faith for electoral expediency and specifically targeted the appellant to cripple it financially.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the claim for misfeasance in public office to proceed, but only on the narrow basis that the government's conduct was specifically targeted to injure the appellant financially.

The court held that core policy decisions based on electoral expediency do not constitute bad faith for the purposes of misfeasance in public office.

The defendants brought motions to compel answers to refusals and undertakings given during the plaintiff’s examination for discovery in a civil action alleging negligent investigation, defamation, abuse of statutory powers, breach of fiduciary duty, and mental distress arising from an erroneous police press release naming the plaintiff in relation to child pornography charges.

The court considered the relevance and proportionality of various discovery questions concerning related defamation actions, settlement amounts, the plaintiff’s health and reputation, his relationship with a convicted roommate, and mitigation of damages.

The court held that certain questions relating to settlements in related actions and mitigation were relevant and should be answered, while many others were properly refused as irrelevant or disproportionate.

The plaintiff was ordered to re-attend discovery to answer specific questions and to satisfy outstanding undertakings within 60 days.

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 plaintiff, whose murder conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal after a reference, brought a civil action against the Crown and police alleging negligence and wrongdoing related to an undisclosed alibi.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process, finding that it sought to relitigate factual findings already made by the Court of Appeal regarding the absence of wrongdoing by the Crown and police.

The court also held that, alternatively, a permanent stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act was warranted due to the impossibility of a fair trial given the passage of over 40 years, faded memories, and lost evidence.

The defendants, Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that dismissed their motions for summary judgment and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The underlying action involved a fatal collision following a high-speed chase by Akwesasne Police Service officers, with the plaintiffs alleging vicarious and direct liability against the government defendants.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision conflicted with established appellate authorities on the tests for summary judgment, amending pleadings, and establishing a private law duty of care, and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The plaintiff corporation sued the provincial government for $2.25 billion after the government imposed a moratorium on offshore wind farm development in Lake Ontario.

The government moved under Rule 21 to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the moratorium constituted a core policy decision grounded in public policy considerations and therefore could not ground liability in tort.

Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, expropriation, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, misfeasance in public office, and intentional infliction of economic harm were all found to be inadequately pleaded or legally unsustainable.

The statement of claim was struck and the action dismissed without leave to amend.

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart and Katz Group, successfully challenged provincial regulations banning pharmacies from selling private label generic drugs at the Divisional Court.

The Minister of Health appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the regulations were intra vires the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act.

The Court held that the regulations validly imposed conditions on the drug supply chain to control prescription drug costs, rather than constituting an unauthorized prohibition, interference with commercial rights, or illegal discrimination.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to dismiss the respondents' civil action based on statutory immunity under s. 38.1 of the Independent Health Facilities Act and abuse of process.

The respondents cross-appealed the striking of allegations relating to investigations under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeals and the cross-appeal, holding that while s. 38.1 provides immunity for losses resulting from specific regulatory orders, factual findings at trial are required to determine if any claimed losses fall outside this protection.

The abuse of process arguments were also left open for trial.

The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of an Order-in-Council revoking his appointment following a recommendation by a Hearing Panel of the Justices of the Peace Review Council.

The applicant argued the Panel erred in denying severance of allegations, gave inadequate reasons, imposed an unreasonable disposition, and that he was denied procedural fairness by not being allowed to make submissions to the Executive Council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Panel's decisions reasonable and concluding that the statutory scheme provides procedural fairness during the hearing process, not before the Executive Council.

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Katz Group Canada Inc., sought costs after being wholly successful in their judicial review applications against the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The respondents argued the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.

The Divisional Court rejected the duplication argument, noting the complexity and importance of the first-instance proceeding.

The court awarded Katz Group its full claimed costs, but reduced Shoppers Drug Mart's fee claim from $104,354 to $80,000 due to excessive hours and duplication among its legal team.

The families of two deceased First Nations persons and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation sought to challenge the representativeness of the jury rolls for two coroners' inquests, arguing that First Nations persons living on reserves were systematically excluded.

The presiding coroners refused to issue summonses to the director of court operations to inquire into the jury roll preparation.

The Court of Appeal held that coroners have jurisdiction by necessary implication to inquire into the representativeness of a jury roll and to remedy an unrepresentative list.

The Court found sufficient evidence to warrant the summonses, allowed the appeals, and ordered a new inquest into one of the deaths.

The applicants, who own and operate pharmacies in Ontario, challenged the validity of provincial regulations that prohibited 'private label' generic drugs from being designated as interchangeable or listed for public reimbursement.

The Divisional Court held that the regulations were ultra vires the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act.

The Court found that the enabling statutes authorized the imposition of conditions, not absolute prohibitions, and that the ban on private label products was extraneous to the legislative purpose of controlling drug costs.

The regulations were declared invalid and of no force and effect.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants engaged in a conspiracy and 'closure campaign' against their sleep clinics.

The defendants argued the claims were barred by statutory immunity under the Independent Health Facilities Act and constituted an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the pleadings were sufficient and the claims were not clearly barred by immunity.

A reporter sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to records of communications among Ministry of the Attorney General officials regarding an ongoing, high-profile criminal prosecution of police officers.

The Ministry refused, relying on the exclusion in s. 65(5.2) for records relating to an ongoing prosecution.

An adjudicator ordered the records produced for an inquiry, interpreting the exclusion narrowly to require a 'substantial connection' and limiting it to documents in the Crown brief.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the order, holding that the adjudicator erred in law by reading in a substantial connection requirement and that the exclusion applied broadly to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal proceedings.

The plaintiffs, nurses who contracted SARS during the 2003 outbreak, sued Ontario for negligence and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

Ontario moved to strike the claim, arguing it owed no private law duty of care to the nurses.

The motion judge struck parts of the claim but allowed the action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal struck the entire claim, holding that Ontario's duty to protect the public from communicable diseases does not create a private law duty of care to individual healthcare workers.

The Court also found no basis for the section 7 Charter claim, as the government's actions were not arbitrary.

The plaintiff brought an action against Ontario and two hospitals after her spouse contracted SARS and died during the 2003 outbreak.

Ontario moved to strike the claim, arguing it did not owe a private law duty of care.

The motion judge refused to strike substantial parts of the claim.

On appeal, adopting the reasons in the related Williams appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed Ontario's appeal, struck the claim in its entirety against Ontario, and dismissed the action, finding no private law duty of care was owed.

The estate trustee and family members of a person who died after contracting SARS sued Ontario, alleging negligence in failing to protect the deceased from the virus.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing it owed no private law duty of care.

The motion judge struck part of the claim but refused to strike it entirely.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, adopting its reasons in a companion case to hold that it was plain and obvious Ontario did not owe the deceased a private law duty of care.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Ontario on behalf of individuals who contracted SARS during the 2003 outbreak, alleging negligence in the province's handling of the crisis.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal applied the Cooper-Anns test and concluded that no relationship of proximity existed between the plaintiff and Ontario capable of giving rise to a private law duty of care.

The court held that the government's public law duty to protect the health of residents does not translate into a private law duty owed to specific individuals.

The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, Ontario's cross-appeal was allowed, and the claim was struck in its entirety.

The plaintiffs sued Ontario for damages suffered as a result of contracting SARS during the 2003 outbreak, alleging negligence, breach of statutory duty, conflict of interest, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge struck parts of the claim but allowed the negligence, conflict of interest, and Charter claims to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was plain and obvious the allegations did not give rise to a private law duty of care or a viable Charter claim.

The appeal was allowed and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety.