Fatema Dada

The plaintiff, Darren Noddle, a self-represented litigant in a civil negligence action against his former doctor and the provincial government, brought a motion seeking an order for publicly-funded counsel.

He alleged that a prescribed drug, Aldara, caused him significant harm, including cognitive impairment and vision problems, which affected his ability to represent himself.

The Attorney General opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiff's Charter rights were not engaged in a civil action and that he failed to meet the established legal tests for publicly-funded counsel or an advance costs award.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that civil actions for personal injury do not engage section 7 Charter rights, and the plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria for an advance costs award, particularly regarding the absence of other realistic funding options and a prima facie meritorious case of public importance.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to add two respondents, amend the application to include the social area of goods and services, and add related allegations.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that the application was at an early stage, mediation had not taken place, and the proposed new respondents did not object to being added.

The General Manager of OHIP brought a motion to dismiss a physician's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The General Manager had denied the physician's claims for insured services, arguing the physician failed to submit supporting documentation within the prescribed six-month timeframe under s. 18(3) of the Health Insurance Act.

The General Manager contended that appeals of s. 18(3) decisions can only be heard by the Divisional Court on judicial review.

The physician argued the claims were submitted in compliance with the Act and should be assessed under s. 18(2), which the Board has jurisdiction to hear.

The Physician Payment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it has jurisdiction to determine whether the General Manager appropriately interpreted the scope of 'prescribed requirements' under s. 18(3) and whether the refusal more properly falls under s. 18(2).

The Superintendent proposed to refuse to renew the registration of Key2Careers College of Business and Technology Inc. under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005, citing a lack of vocational student enrollments for more than two successive periods and concerns regarding the school's financial responsibility.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the school had no vocational students, failed to meet revenue projections, and was providing non-vocational programs that did not require registration under the Act.

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

The plaintiff brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking declarations regarding the construction of a floating dock and boathouse by his neighbors on a lake.

The neighbors had built the structure without municipal building permits or provincial work/occupancy permits, relying on the municipality's position that it lacked jurisdiction over Crown lands and the province's position that floating structures were exempt.

The court held that the municipality's zoning by-laws and the Building Code Act apply to private individuals constructing on Crown lands covered by water.

Furthermore, the court found that the provincial regulations under the Public Lands Act require work and occupancy permits for such structures, rejecting the government's interpretation as absurd.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by requesting receipts for a computer and printer funded prior to the settlement.

The applicant argued the settlement resolved all technology funding issues, exempting him from providing receipts.

The Tribunal found the settlement clearly pertained only to the original application regarding a denied tablet device, and the request for receipts for previously funded equipment did not constitute a breach.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that the parties were working on settling the matter.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Direction on Scheduling requires exceptional circumstances for late adjournment requests, and that engaging in settlement discussions does not meet this threshold.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for the failure of a road surface treatment applied by the respondent contractors.

The trial judge concluded the contract was a method specification contract, placing the risk of failure on the MTO, and heavily criticized MTO's counsel for allegedly improperly influencing its expert witness, awarding full indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the contract but found he erred in his severe criticism of MTO's trial counsel, noting that counsel's interactions with the expert were appropriate under the principles in Moore v. Getahun.

Consequently, the Court reduced the trial costs award from full to substantial indemnity.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing his action against multiple defendants under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and vexatious.

The Court of Appeal issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating the appeal itself may be dismissed on similar grounds.

The Court found the appellant's pleading contained no intelligible claims against the respondents and sought non-justiciable relief regarding the redesign of Ontario's social welfare and legal services systems.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and family status by the respondent in relation to a family law dispute.

The applicant claimed that the court assigned inexperienced judges to his case and treated him differently than his former spouse due to negative stereotypes about Black men.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to any Code-protected grounds, and the allegations were inextricably linked to the judicial process.

The plaintiff, who was previously investigated for stock fraud and entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission, sued 67 defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts.

Ten motions were brought by 64 defendants to strike the pleadings and dismiss the actions.

The court dismissed the action against the Attorney General of Ontario because the malicious prosecution claim could not succeed, as the criminal proceedings were stayed pursuant to a settlement and thus not terminated in the plaintiff's favour.

The actions against the remaining moving defendants were dismissed as an abuse of process because they attempted to re-litigate facts already settled or judicially determined in prior proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike or dismiss the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim arising from employment-related disputes with hospitals and subsequent complaints before several administrative tribunals.

The court held that the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal, and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board were not suable entities because their enabling statutes did not confer corporate status or capacity to be sued.

The claim against those bodies was therefore dismissed.

The court further held that the pleadings against the Crown disclosed no reasonable cause of action, contained vague and unsupported allegations of corruption and Charter breaches, and failed to plead material facts necessary to support a recognized cause of action.

The claim against the Crown was struck with leave to amend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, disability, and family status against a social worker who prepared a custody assessment report and the Family Court that managed his family law dispute.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the social worker because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation, and the social worker's testimony was protected by expert witness immunity.

The application against the Family Court was also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review judicial decision-making processes.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts arising from criminal charges related to a 1992 arson.

The court found the 63-page statement of claim to be prolix, repetitive, argumentative, and replete with evidence, violating the rules of pleading.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiffs 60 days leave to amend, providing detailed guidance on how to properly plead the causes of action.

The court declined to strike the negligent investigation claims without leave to amend, noting the law in this area is unsettled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, family status, and marital status by Ontario Works.

He alleged that Ontario Works refused to investigate his claims of welfare fraud against his ex-wife because of his gender, and that he was denied financial assistance for his child on the same basis.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the respondent's website and the sponsorship contract for having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground.

The remaining allegations were dismissed as untimely, as they occurred more than one year prior to the application and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and association after her children were apprehended by a children's aid society with police assistance, following a hospital visit where a doctor reported concerns about her mental health and denial of care to her child.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the respondents were acting pursuant to their duties under the Child and Family Services Act and that the applicant provided no evidence connecting their actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age, ancestry, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, and sex after the Ministry of the Attorney General failed to notify the Ministry of Transportation that his traffic conviction had been quashed on appeal.

This failure resulted in increased insurance premiums.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's belief that the administrative error was motivated by discrimination was based on pure speculation with no factual underpinning.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it declined to investigate his complaint regarding police conduct in 1991.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application, arguing the SIU performs an adjudicative function not covered by the Code as a service, and that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the SIU's investigative function is a service under the Code, but dismissed the application because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in proving the SIU's refusal to investigate was based on his disability.