Eric Wagner

The plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted while in the Witness Protection Program and sought damages against Ontario on theories of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the sexual assault occurred, but held that the protection team’s private duty of care was limited to protection from the identified outside threat and that no breach of the applicable standard of care was proven, particularly in the absence of expert evidence on the Witness Protection Program standard of care in 1987.

The court further held that legal causation and foreseeability were not established, and rejected the fiduciary and contract claims.

In an alternative assessment, the court would have awarded damages for psychological harm from the assault, but not for COPD, income loss, or housekeeping claims.

The plaintiffs, Lucia Derenzis and Joshua Da Silva, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for production of records held by the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) in relation to their constitutional challenge to Ontario’s no-fault auto insurance scheme.

The records included adjudicators’ notes, draft decisions, and over 400 emails.

The LAT and Tribunals Ontario opposed production, citing deliberative secrecy and solicitor-client privilege.

Justice Mandhane found the records relevant and necessary to the constitutional challenge, and ordered production except for those protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The decision addresses the limits of deliberative secrecy and the necessity of evidence for constitutional litigation.

The plaintiffs, Daniel Knox, Harrison Knox, and Sherry Cole, sued His Majesty The King in Right of Ontario and several police constables for unlawful arrest and battery.

The claims stemmed from an incident where Daniel Knox and Sherry Cole arrived at a scene where Harrison Knox had already been arrested.

The court found that Daniel Knox assaulted an officer, justifying his arrest and the use of a taser.

Sherry Cole also assaulted an officer, justifying her arrest and the force used.

Harrison Knox's initial arrest was found lawful based on reasonable grounds.

The court dismissed all claims, concluding that the arrests were lawful and the force used by police was justified.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking out his negligence claim against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The appellant alleged that FRO was negligent in handling his child support payments and reporting him to a credit bureau, arguing FRO owed him a duty to reply to his correspondence.

The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that FRO did not owe a duty of care to the appellant, applying the Cooper v. Hobart framework.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1 review, at the request of the Ontario Provincial Police, to consider dismissing the plaintiff's action against the Toronto Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police.

The plaintiff's claim alleged police inaction in investigating harassment.

The court found grounds to believe the action was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process against these two defendants due to a lack of factual involvement and issues of vicarious liability under the Police Services Act.

The plaintiff was given 15 days to file a written submission in response, and the proceeding was stayed pending the resolution of the Rule 2.1 process.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought a motion on behalf of Monte McNaughton (former Minister of Labour) and Margaret Townsend (Director of the Office of the Worker Advisors) to quash two summonses to witness issued by self-represented plaintiffs in a proposed class action.

The plaintiffs sought to compel testimony regarding the Office of the Worker Advisors' (OWA) obligation to provide legal representation.

The court quashed the summonses, finding the evidence sought irrelevant to the pending Rule 15 motion (which addresses the requirement for class action representatives to be represented by counsel) and that the plaintiffs failed to establish the non-parties likely possessed relevant evidence.

The court also determined the examination constituted an abuse of process, as much of the information was already available or obtainable through other means, and that Townsend, as OWA Director, was immune from being summonsed under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. for the production of a Crown Disclosure Brief from the defendants Vasos Georgiou and John Aquino.

The original motion was adjourned sine die after the Attorney General provided key undertakings.

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs ($20,000) but not on entitlement.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57, decided that no costs should be awarded to any party.

The decision considered the novelty of the issues, the timing of the Attorney General's undertakings, and the fact that the outcome was not primarily based on the arguments presented by the defendants seeking costs.

The plaintiff in a civil rescission action sought an order compelling the defendants to produce the Crown disclosure brief they received in related criminal proceedings concerning the same alleged fraud in a hospital procurement process.

The Attorney General opposed immediate production, arguing it could taint witnesses before they testified in the criminal trial.

The court balanced the interests under the Wagg framework and adjourned the motion sine die, accepting the Attorney General's undertaking to conduct a Wagg review and produce the documents within eight weeks after a verdict in the criminal proceedings.

The applicants, families of adults with severe autism, sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to discontinue special, non-statutory funding for Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) therapy and transition them to mainstream adult developmental services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation of public funds is a political decision not subject to judicial review absent bad faith.

The court also dismissed the applicants' Charter claims, reaffirming that section 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to fund specific health or social services, and finding no breach of sections 7, 9, or 12 regarding one applicant's involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant, Trillium Power Wind Corporation, appealed the dismissal of its claims for misfeasance in public office and spoliation against the Ontario government.

The claims arose from the abrupt cancellation of offshore wind power projects and the subsequent destruction of government documents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the misfeasance claim, finding no evidence that the moratorium announcement was timed to injure the appellant or that the appellant suffered damages.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the spoliation claim, finding that the deliberate destruction of relevant government documents, even under a general policy, constituted spoliation and an abuse of process.

Despite this, no damages were awarded for spoliation as the appellant could not prove it suffered any, but the appellant was granted costs of the appeal and Ontario was deprived of its costs below.

The plaintiff's action regarding a cancelled wind power project was dismissed after a 10-year litigation.

The successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle for $78,000 which the plaintiff had rejected.

The court applied Rule 49 and awarded substantial indemnity costs, but exercised its discretion to reduce the requested fees by nearly half due to the plaintiff's misfortune in dealing with the government's policy reversals.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $300,000 in fees and $457,486.89 in disbursements.

The plaintiff sued the provincial government after a moratorium on offshore wind projects was announced on the exact day the plaintiff's project financing was set to close.

The plaintiff alleged the government intentionally timed the announcement to deprive it of litigation resources, and further claimed spoliation of evidence due to the government's deletion of senior staff emails.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no evidence the government knew of the financing timing and concluding the email destruction, while improper, was a routine practice not aimed at this specific litigation.

The moving party, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,969.69.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer questions refused or taken under advisement during examinations for discovery in a $20 million road construction dispute.

The central issue in the action is responsibility for excess rock excavation.

The court dismissed most of the defendants' requests, finding that questions about a 1994 litigation between the parties were irrelevant and that the plaintiffs' answers regarding their blasting subcontractor were sufficient and proportionate.

The plaintiffs were ordered to provide a written answer regarding how they would have bid the job differently only if their expert report provided sufficient data to do so.

This decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses three related matters.

The first involved an appeal in Blanchard v. Georgina (Town), where the panel considered a motion to review a security for costs order and an ex parte motion by the Town of Georgina to dismiss the appeal for non-payment of security.

The second matter concerned a proposed appeal in Grand Chief v. Phillips et al, specifically a review of an order denying an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The third matter was a general review of a prior order by Thorburn J.A. The court dismissed the request for an adjournment and allowed a non-lawyer spokesperson to represent one of the parties.

The court found no basis to stay or consolidate the appeals based on aboriginal land claims.

The Georgina appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the security for costs order, and the review of the denial of extension of time for the Grand Chief v. Phillips appeal was also dismissed, with costs awarded against the unsuccessful parties in both instances.

The defendant brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04 to seek leave to amend its statement of defence under Rule 26.02(c), as the action had already been set down for trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the delay in seeking the amendments was inordinate and presumed prejudice.

The court held that the mandatory language of Rule 26.01 governed, requiring amendments to be allowed unless there is non-compensable prejudice.

Finding no prejudice that could not be compensated in costs, the court granted the defendant leave to bring the motion and leave to amend the pleading.

This costs endorsement arose from a settled production motion and an unbrought security for costs motion.

The Plaintiff sought substantial or partial indemnity costs for the production motion, while the Defendant Province argued for costs to be reserved or a nominal partial indemnity.

The court found exceptional circumstances to award costs despite the settlement, primarily due to the Province's unresponsiveness and failure to meet deadlines, which caused the Plaintiff to incur unnecessary costs.

The Plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity was rejected, as was the Province's low offer.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 on a partial indemnity scale, payable by the Province to the Plaintiff within 30 days, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

The defendants, including the former and current Commissioners of the OPP and Her Majesty the Queen, brought motions to strike portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim alleging negligent supervision and training following an alleged assault by police officers.

The court found that the claim against the current Commissioner disclosed a reasonable cause of action but failed to plead sufficient material facts, striking it with leave to amend.

The motion to strike the claim against the former Commissioner was dismissed, as the court found the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded material facts regarding his knowledge of the officers' alleged incompetence and lack of training.

The applicant, charged with multiple counts of fraud related to bank loans, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings pending the appointment of state-funded counsel.

He argued he was indigent and had been denied Legal Aid.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's extensive business background and education made him capable of representing himself, meaning his right to a fair trial would not be compromised.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant failed to prove indigence, noting inconsistencies in evidence regarding his separation from his wife, his failure to pursue his share of the matrimonial home proceeds, and his lack of adequate financial disclosure.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing their action regarding a property sale.

The appellants challenged the sale on multiple grounds, including that procedures in a manual were not followed, that the motion judge was biased, that no auction occurred, and that the sale was improvident.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court judgment, holding that the manual procedures did not have the force of law, the bias argument lacked merit, the motion judge properly accepted evidence that the auction occurred, and the appellants had adequate notice and failed to provide credible evidence of impropriety.