Judith Parker

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's orders for unpaid wages to the individual respondents.

The applicant argued the respondents were never employees and raised issues of procedural fairness regarding witness coaching.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably relied on documentary evidence due to credibility issues on both sides, and held there was no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings or its failure to address an alternative argument not raised before it.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering her to pay unpaid wages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under section 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.

Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate apparent grounds for relief because she failed to pursue an adequate alternative remedy before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and she failed to show that the delay would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent employee.

The defendants, a police detective and the Crown, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, alleged that the detective lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for domestic violence offences and relied on unreliable complainants.

The court found that the detective conducted a comprehensive investigation, consulted with supervisors and the Crown, and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff abattoir sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion arising from the 19-month suspension of its licence and detention of meat products following an investigation into the processing of uninspected and dead animals.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the provincial regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, as its statutory mandate was to protect public health.

Even if a duty existed, the regulator did not breach the standard of care given the extraordinary circumstances of concurrent criminal investigations, nor did its actions cause the plaintiff's business losses.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review regarding the refusal to renew a trapline licence, the respondent Minister sought costs.

The applicant did not make any costs submissions.

The Divisional Court awarded the Minister costs of $8,000 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the commercial nature of the dispute and the reasonableness of the quantum sought.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to refuse to renew his commercial trapping licence for a specific trapline and to allocate it to an Indigenous trapper.

The applicant had initially been allocated the trapline, but the Ministry later determined it had erred in rejecting the Indigenous trapper's claim of ancestral connection to the area.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's discretionary decision was reasonable, intelligible, and transparent.

The court also held that the applicant was afforded adequate procedural fairness, as he was kept informed and had no substantive property right to the trapline.

Following preliminary motions in an application for judicial review concerning a wind energy project, both the applicant and the intervenor sought costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs for a motion for party status and a motion for protective costs.

The intervenor sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the motions were unnecessary.

The court found that the applicant was successful on the first motion, while the intervenor was successful on the second.

Noting the excessive costs claimed and inadequate cost outlines, the court concluded that the entitlements offset each other and made no order as to costs.

Mediamix Interactive Inc. appealed a Master's order that upheld the refusal of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario to produce nine redacted slides from a 24-slide PowerPoint presentation, on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

Mediamix argued the Master erred in finding privilege and in not finding a waiver of privilege by the disclosure of the other 15 slides.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly determined the redacted slides were protected by solicitor-client privilege and that no waiver occurred, as the disclosed slides were not privileged.

The court affirmed that disclosing non-privileged portions of a document does not waive privilege over genuinely privileged parts.

The applicant brought motions for declarations of justiciability and public interest standing, a protective costs order, and an order for further records in its application for judicial review of approvals for a wind energy project.

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) moved to quash the application as it related to its decision.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions, finding the standing and justiciability issues premature without a full evidentiary record, and denying the protective costs order and records request.

The court granted the OEB's motion to quash, finding the environmental and social issues raised by the applicant were outside the OEB's jurisdiction.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the approval of a wind farm project, the successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $163,961.25.

The applicants opposed the costs and sought their own costs, arguing the case involved novel heritage issues and public interest.

The court rejected claims of misconduct from both sides that would justify extraordinary costs.

Acknowledging the public interest and novelty of the heritage issues, the majority reduced the costs award and ordered the applicants to pay $75,000 to the successful respondent.

A dissenting judge would have ordered no costs, emphasizing the importance of public participation in judicial review of government decisions.

The defendant requested the dismissal of the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, who appeared to be an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigant, failed to respond to the court's notice.

The court found the claim incomprehensible and lacking any basis, and dismissed the proceeding as an abuse of process.

The applicants, owners of a designated heritage property, sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to issue a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind farm project.

The applicants argued the Director failed to properly interpret the REA Regulation regarding cultural heritage and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness, the Director's decision to issue the REA was reasonable and balanced the statutory priorities, and the comprehensive procedural code in the REA Regulation fulfilled the duty of procedural fairness.

Two moving parties, wpd White Pines and Ron Higgins, sought party or intervener status in an application for judicial review challenging the approval of a wind energy project.

The court found that wpd White Pines, the project proponent, was not a necessary party under Rule 5.03 but granted it intervener status under Rule 13.01 without the conditions requested by the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion by Ron Higgins, finding he did not meet the criteria for intervention and his participation would unduly delay the proceedings.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant previously declared a vexatious litigant in three separate orders, sought leave to bring a motion to reinstate his appeals after they were dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the moving party failed to perfect the appeals despite being capable of filing voluminous materials.

The court further held that the underlying appeals were entirely devoid of merit and that the interests of justice would not be served by permitting the matter to proceed.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP, which reduced his stale-dated billing claims from $572,462.41 to $203,864.07 following a sample audit.

The applicant argued the General Manager lacked jurisdiction to reduce the claims under the amended Health Insurance Act, acted unreasonably, and breached procedural fairness by refusing a meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the General Manager had discretion under s. 18(3) to set conditions for reviewing late claims, the sample audit methodology was reasonable, and procedural fairness was met without an in-person meeting.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's actions, the successful defendants sought costs.

The self-represented plaintiff also sought costs despite being entirely unsuccessful.

The court denied the plaintiff's request and awarded costs to the defendants, noting the plaintiff's unrelenting and vengeful pursuit of doomed litigation.

The court balanced the plaintiff's conduct with the need for costs to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, awarding $9,500 to the Queen and $3,500 to the defendant Ramage.

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a supplementary notice of appeal and for case management directions.

The moving party had improperly combined appeals of three vexatious litigant declarations and a dismissed application into a single notice of appeal without obtaining the required leave for the application appeal.

The Court of Appeal struck the application appeal without prejudice for failing to obtain leave under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

However, recognizing the moving party's clear intention to appeal the vexatious litigant declarations, the Court granted an extension of time to file separate notices of appeal for those orders.

The request for case management was dismissed.

The applicant, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, sought judicial review of a Varied Rebate Order imposing a financial penalty of over $2.9 million for receiving unlawful rebates from generic drug manufacturers.

The applicant argued that the payments were professional allowances or wholesaler fees, and challenged the Executive Officer's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of the process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Executive Officer had jurisdiction to regulate wholesalers and enforce the anti-rebate provisions.

The court also rejected the procedural fairness arguments, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no actual prejudice resulting from delay or redacted disclosure.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by AgriCorp awarding it compensation under the AgriStability program, arguing that the participation of AgriCorp staff at multiple stages of the decision-making process created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that AgriCorp is essentially a delegate of the Minister exercising executive functions, and the required level of impartiality is that of an 'open mind'.

The court concluded that AgriCorp maintained an open mind and that the staff's involvement did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellants, owners of private cottages on leased land in a provincial park, appealed a decision declaring them obligated to pay a portion of the grant in lieu of taxes paid by the Crown to the municipality under the Municipal Tax Assistance Act.

The appellants argued that prior lease agreements and correspondence constituted an agreement exempting them from this obligation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that no such agreement existed and affirming the Crown's right to enforce its statutory rights following a change in taxation policy.