Jennifer Saville

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering the dismissal of the applicants' judicial review application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The notice cited the litigation guardian's failure to retain counsel and the deficient nature of the Notice of Application.

The court found the applicants had cured the representation defect by retaining counsel.

Although the Notice of Application remained fundamentally deficient, the court granted the applicants an indulgence to file an amended pleading, staying the Rule 2.1 process pending compliance.

The applicants, acting through litigation guardians, sought judicial review of decisions regarding secondary school programs offered by the Toronto District School Board.

At a previous case conference, the litigation guardians were directed to retain counsel as required by Rule 7.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to amend their deficient notice of application.

At a subsequent case conference, the applicants sought a continued stay pending the outcome of a similar case, while the respondent sought dismissal for non-compliance.

Finding that the litigation guardians had failed to retain full counsel and that the notice of application remained deficient, the court directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented applicant, an adult over 21, sought judicial review of the school board's student interest program admission policy and by-laws after being denied admission to two secondary school programs.

The school board brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing, as he had no legal right to attend the programs.

Furthermore, the court held it lacked jurisdiction because the school board's admission policy and by-laws were not the product of a statutory power of decision.

The defendants in a complex defamation action brought motions for the production of documents related to 'Project Maple Tree', an operation undertaken by foreign investigative agents (including Black Cube) retained by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motions despite the stay provision in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding the third-party investigators were not essential to the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also rejected the claims of litigation privilege for the vast majority of the documents, finding their dominant purpose was not legitimate litigation and that the 'Blank exception' applied because the agents engaged in improper conduct, including pretext stings on a former judge and opposing party employees.

The appellants, a group of telecommunications carriers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that increased the province-wide default price for attaching cables to electricity poles.

The appellants argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by conducting a policy review rather than holding a full hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was not statutorily required to hold a hearing under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, and that the policy review process adopted by the Board was procedurally fair and entitled to deference.

The applicants sought to schedule an expedited application for judicial review of an emergency order made under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The order permitted specified persons to obtain personal health information about the COVID status of individuals.

The court declined to set an expedited schedule because the applicants had not yet served their expert evidence, there was no direct evidence of urgency, and the order was set to expire shortly.

A regular hearing date was set, with further case conferences scheduled to address potential mootness or timetabling.

The moving parties, a group of telecommunications companies, brought a motion for directions seeking disclosure and production of internal documents and communications from the Ontario Energy Board to form the record for their challenge of a new Pole Attachment Charge.

The court applied the 'meaningful judicial review test' to determine the required contents of the record, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply.

The court concluded that the requested documents, including drafts, internal correspondence, and identities of report authors, were not necessary for a meaningful review of the moving parties' complaints regarding process, burden of proof, and ignored submissions.

The motion for disclosure and production was dismissed.