Connie Vernon

The plaintiff sought court approval of a $12 million settlement in a class action alleging systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by the provincial government resulting in physical and sexual abuse at the Child and Parent Resource Institute (CPRI).

Despite objections from some class members regarding the lack of a direct apology and the adequacy of compensation, the court approved the settlement, finding it fell within the zone of reasonableness established in similar institutional abuse class actions.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees of $2.75 million and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The applicant sought sanctions for civil contempt against the respondent church and its pastors for repeatedly breaching a restraining order that enforced COVID-19 public health gathering limits.

The court found the respondents in contempt for holding large indoor religious services in defiance of the order.

Applying the factors for civil contempt sentencing, the court imposed fines of $35,000 on the church, $10,000 on the lead pastor, and $3,000 on the assistant pastor.

The court also ordered the church doors to be locked until gathering limits were eased to permit 30 percent capacity, and awarded $69,000 in partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The appellant appealed from orders of the Superior Court striking her claims against Crown Defendants and dismissing them without leave to amend, and striking her claims against Ms. Santone with leave to amend to pursue only a breach of privacy claim.

The appellant's pleading alleged damages of $8.4 million arising from treatment by various state officials spanning from 1970 to 2011, including claims for conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, breach of trust, intentional infliction of mental distress, and various statutory violations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, lacked material facts to support the allegations, and that the Crown Defendants were protected by statutory and common law immunity.

The court also rejected the appellant's allegation of judicial bias.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the provincial Crown regarding alleged institutional abuse at the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute (CPRI) between 1963 and 2011.

The defendant consented to the certification.

The court reviewed the requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act and found them satisfied, noting the commonality of issues and the vulnerability of the proposed class.

The action was certified on consent.

Following a decision on the merits, the court requested written submissions on costs.

The defendants submitted bills of costs, but the self-represented plaintiff failed to respond within the allotted time.

The court reviewed the bills of costs, found them reasonable given the complexity of the matter and the number of parties, and awarded costs to the Crown and the police defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

The Crown brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike and dismiss claims brought against it in tort and for alleged Charter breaches.

The court held that the tort claims were a nullity because the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

With respect to the Charter claims, the statement of claim failed to plead a concise statement of material facts capable of supporting a viable cause of action or damages claim.

The court found the allegations largely constituted a collateral attack on judicial decisions made during the plaintiff’s bail proceedings.

All claims against the Crown were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a contempt order and the penalty imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even excluding the alleged hearsay evidence, there was ample evidence to support the findings of contempt.

The court also upheld the penalty, characterizing it as moderate in the circumstances, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request to stay a contempt proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the material before the motion judge did not support the request, particularly as there was no evidence that an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal the underlying interlocutory injunction order could succeed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons were adequate and the result was not unreasonable.

The Court noted that the appellant's aboriginal background was only briefly mentioned before the Board, but drew the Board's attention to the requirement to consider such background in future hearings.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his claim.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, failed to plead the essential elements of any cause of action, and constituted an abuse of process as an attempt to relitigate previous court proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing despite being advised by amicus curiae that the appeal could be dismissed if he did not appear.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The applicant sought to reopen appeals from 2005 and 2006 Ontario Review Board dispositions that had been dismissed as moot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to reopen, noting the applicant had an outstanding appeal against his current 2007 disposition that raised the identical issues.

However, the Court granted the applicant's motion to appoint counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for his pending appeal, finding it desirable in the interests of justice.

The applicant withdrew its application for judicial review after its related appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court found that the judicial review application was unnecessary and constituted re-litigation of issues already decided by multiple bodies.

The court awarded the Crown $10,000 in fees and $4,000 in disbursements on a substantial indemnity scale.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, the respondent Ministry of Natural Resources sought partial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount of $8,034.09 to be reasonable and ordered it payable forthwith.

On consent, the respondent County of Haldimand was awarded costs of $2,500.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Municipal Board regarding the revocation of a licence, arguing the Board erred in law by failing to understand that the revocation was tainted by prior allegedly unlawful actions by the Ministry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision and noting that the Board's conclusion that the appellant was not in compliance with licence conditions was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant failed to appear and sought an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal declined to decide on the adjournment request, finding that the appeal was moot because the appellant was already subject to a subsequent detention order issued by the Board.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 20, 2005.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as moot, referring to endorsement C46302.

The appellant appealed from a judgment dismissing her motion.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the appellant had not presented the proper material for a Rule 14B motion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, who were committed for trial on charges of first degree murder, appealed the dismissal of their applications to quash the committal order.

They brought a motion seeking an order that they not be required to pay for additional copies of the preliminary inquiry transcripts for the appeal, having already paid for copies used in the Superior Court.

They also sought an order requiring the court reporters to produce the transcripts on diskette for a nominal fee.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that rule 8(7) of the Criminal Appeal Rules is intended to avoid unnecessary duplication of expense, and ordered the court reporters to produce the transcripts on diskette for $1 each.