David Westcott

The moving party, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal from a Superior Court order that denied his request to compel the filing of a Notice of Appeal for a Provincial Offences Act conviction.

The Court of Appeal denied the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal as there was no legal basis for the order sought below.

The Court also directed the Registrar to commence a rule 2.1 review process to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a career college under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The Superintendent proposed refusal based on the appellant's sole director failing to disclose his involvement in several other entities and demonstrating a pattern of disorganization and carelessness.

The Tribunal found that the director's failure to disclose his roles in other businesses and his careless conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate a career college in compliance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

A case management conference was held for five appeals relating to an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation in the Community of Tempo, London, Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered that the five files be heard together in accordance with Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A ten-day video hearing was scheduled for April 2026, and a procedural order was issued to govern the pre-hearing requirements, including mediation, discovery, and the exchange of expert reports.

A case management conference was held regarding five appeals relating to an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal ordered that the five appeals be heard together and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for April 2026.

A procedural order was approved to govern the pre-hearing requirements.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought forfeiture of $99,210 in Canadian currency seized at Fallsview Casino, alleging it was the proceeds of unlawful activity, specifically money laundering.

The respondent, Branavan Kanapathipillai, claimed the funds were from legitimate gambling and a third mortgage.

The court reviewed expert evidence, financial tracing, and the respondent’s explanations, ultimately finding the Attorney General met the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The court ordered the funds forfeited, finding the respondent’s explanations unconvincing and the circumstances highly suspicious.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a stated case to the Divisional Court to determine whether the Durham Regional Police Service had a lawful excuse for refusing to produce certain emails responsive to a summons.

The DRPS claimed the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

After reviewing the emails, the court found they involved communications between senior members of the DRPS and their counsel related to the provision of legal advice.

The court held the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege and the DRPS was justified in withholding them.