Arif Virani

The applicant commenced a Charter challenge against an Ontario regulation that terminated OHIP funding for sex reassignment surgery.

After years of complex litigation and shortly before the hearing on the merits, the government repealed the impugned regulation, rendering the application moot.

The applicant sought her costs thrown away.

The court held that the applicant was substantially successful in achieving her goal through the policy change and awarded her partial indemnity costs fixed at $200,000, noting the importance of not penalizing pro bono counsel in public interest litigation.

The applicants brought an application alleging that the provincial and federal governments breached ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter by making decisions and implementing program changes which eroded access to affordable housing.

The respondents brought motions to dismiss the application on the grounds that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the issues raised were not justiciable.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the application, finding that s. 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to provide affordable housing, and the impugned decisions did not deny the applicants a benefit given to others under s. 15.

The court also held that the issues raised were not justiciable as they involved broad policy choices.

Several public interest organizations sought leave to intervene as friends of the court on a motion to strike a constitutional application alleging that federal and provincial housing policies violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to ensure adequate housing.

The proposed interveners argued they could provide perspectives relating to poverty, disability, housing policy, international human rights obligations, and constitutional remedies.

The court emphasized that intervention on a Rule 21 motion is exceptional and requires a showing that the intervener will make a useful legal contribution beyond the parties’ submissions without prejudicing the proceeding.

Interventions focused primarily on social context or policy impacts were rejected because the motion concerned a narrow legal question regarding whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted limited intervention status to three groups with specific expertise relevant to Charter interpretation, international human rights law, and constitutional remedies, while dismissing the remaining intervention motions.

The Crown appealed a declaration that the process for setting the remuneration of Case Management Masters violated the constitutional principle of judicial independence.

The respondents cross-appealed, seeking a broader remedy than a simple declaration of invalidity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that linking the Masters' salaries in perpetuity to a specific civil service classification without an independent commission violated the requirement for an independent, effective, and objective process.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as a simple declaration of invalidity was the appropriate remedy.

The suspension of the declaration of invalidity was extended for 12 months.

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of severed portions of statistical reports regarding court activity.

The reports were created by the Ministry at the request of the Chief Justice.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commissioner erred in finding the reports were under the Ministry's 'control', the reports were nonetheless in the Ministry's 'custody' because they were integrated into the Ministry's operations and used for its own core functions.

The court concluded that disclosing the severed portions would not compromise judicial independence and dismissed the application.

The appellants, owners and patrons of adult entertainment parlours, challenged the constitutional validity of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and sought damages under private law causes of action.

The motion judge struck most of the claims but allowed the division of powers claim to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the private law and Charter claims.

On cross-appeal, the Court held that the division of powers claim should also have been struck, as it is plain and obvious that the pith and substance of the Act is to promote health, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The complainants, family members of deceased involuntary psychiatric patients, alleged that s. 10 of the Coroners Act discriminated against them on the basis of mental disability by making inquests discretionary for involuntary patients but mandatory for inmates in penal institutions.

The Human Rights Tribunal found discrimination and ordered inquests and damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while a coroner's inquest is a 'service' under s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, the differential treatment under the Coroners Act does not amount to discrimination.

The distinction is based on the different vulnerable circumstances and levels of public oversight in penal institutions versus psychiatric facilities, not on disability.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The Attorney General appealed a decision finding that the Order-in-Council process for setting the remuneration of Small Claims Court deputy judges violated the principle of judicial independence.

The Court of Appeal held that deputy judges are entitled to an independent, effective, and objective process for determining their remuneration, and that the current purely political Order-in-Council process fails to meet this constitutional standard.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the application judge erred in mandating a specific commission model, and gave the government four months to establish a constitutionally compliant process.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard multiple appeals from New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec regarding the constitutional requirement for independent judicial compensation commissions.

The Court clarified the principles from the Provincial Judges Reference, establishing a three-stage analysis for determining whether a government's response to a commission's recommendations meets the standard of rationality.

The Court upheld the government responses in New Brunswick and Ontario, found the Alberta government's response partially irrational but globally effective, and struck down the Quebec government's response for failing to address the committee's core recommendations.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the lower court.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the lower court judge and dismissed the appeal.

In the circumstances, the court declined to order costs on the appeal.

The appellants, representing Ontario provincial court judges, appealed the dismissal of their application for judicial review of the provincial government's decision to reject the recommendations of the Fourth Triennial Provincial Judges' Remuneration Commission regarding judicial pensions.

The government had accepted binding salary recommendations but rejected the non-binding pension enhancements, citing fiscal restraint and the fact that the 28% salary increase already significantly increased pension values.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the government's post-report retention of an actuarial firm to cost the proposals was appropriate, and that the government's reasons for rejecting the pension recommendations met the 'simple rationality' standard established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the P.E.I. Reference.