Kaelan Unrau

The applicant, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation, sought an order to evict the respondent from community rental housing on the reserve due to alleged breaches of his tenancy agreement.

The First Nation claimed the respondent drove vehicles through neighbouring yards, stored dismantled camper trailers in his backyard, and damaged a fence.

The respondent denied the breaches and argued unfair treatment, also challenging the binding nature of the rental agreement and the applicability of the Council's Rental Unit Policy.

The court found the rental agreement binding through conduct and determined that the respondent had breached it by interfering with neighbours' quiet enjoyment, violating by-laws regarding vehicle storage, and damaging property.

The court granted the eviction order, requiring the respondent to vacate the unit within 30 days, but declined to include a police enforcement clause.

The plaintiff professional corporation brought an action against the Law Society of Ontario, several individuals, and a Superior Court judge, seeking damages and declarations related to a previous unsuccessful application.

The defendants requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the judge had absolute immunity, the plaintiff corporation had no cause of action, the issues had already been decided in the previous proceeding, and the pleadings contained inflammatory and bellicose language.

The self-represented applicant filed voluminous, non-compliant, and electronically restricted materials, including an unauthorized transcript of a prior hearing.

The court struck the unauthorized transcript for contravening section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act and issued strict procedural directions to manage the unwieldy litigation, scheduling special appointments for the applicant's publication ban motion and the substantive application.

The self-represented applicant lawyer brought an application against the Law Society of Ontario and several individuals following online disputes and subsequent professional complaints.

The matter came before the court on a regular motions list but was plagued by procedural irregularities, including improper service, failure to file application records, and disputes over representation.

The court adjourned the matter to a special appointment hearing, provided strict timetables for the filing of materials, and dismissed the applicant's request to remove opposing counsel from the record for alleged sharp practice.

In a group of six child protection appeals, the appellant J.B. brought a motion to reconstitute the panel, seeking to replace one of the judges due to her involvement in a prior unanimous decision that had reinstated a no-access order against J.B. The appellant argued for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal denied the motion, reaffirming the strong presumption of judicial impartiality and the high burden on the party alleging bias.

The court held that a judge's prior ruling against a party on a legal issue in a different case does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias for a new case involving different legal issues, even if the parties are the same.

This appeal concerned the liability of Children's Aid Societies (CAS) and the Ontario government for damages arising from flawed hair follicle drug and alcohol test results from the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory (MDTL) used in child protection proceedings.

Family members (parents and siblings) of children apprehended by CASs sued for negligence, negligent investigation/supervision, intentional infliction of mental distress, bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches.

The motions judge dismissed these claims, finding that CASs and Ontario did not owe a private law duty of care to parents or family members, as their primary duty is to the child's best interests, creating an untenable conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision, affirming that the CAS's duty is solely to the child, and Ontario's duties are general public duties, not private law duties to individuals in child protection matters or related to laboratory oversight.

The court also rejected claims of bad faith and Charter breaches as being disguised negligence claims, and dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty and s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, finding these duties are owed to the Indigenous child, not the Indigenous parent.