Kent Elson

The appellant, an environmental advocacy group, appealed decisions of the Ontario Energy Board granting leave to construct four natural gas projects.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by denying its requests to file proposed survey and expert evidence and to convene a technical conference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test by balancing the probative value of the evidence against regulatory efficiency.

Applying the Baker factors, the Court held that the appellant, as an intervenor, was owed a duty of fairness at the lower end of the spectrum, and the Board's procedural choices did not amount to a denial of natural justice.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of inmates in federal penitentiaries who were subjected to suspicionless strip searches.

The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations authorizing these searches in certain situations were ultra vires the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, breached sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and constituted torts including trespass to the person and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections and granted the motion for certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, the class definition was appropriate, the proposed common issues were valid, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The plaintiff, Victoria Sanders, sought costs of $75,740.16 after successfully obtaining an interlocutory injunction against Canada's Choice Investments Inc. (CCI) to restrain mortgage enforcement.

CCI argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, which is typical for interlocutory injunctions as there has been no final determination of rights.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, agreed with CCI, ordering that the costs of the motion be "in the cause" to be determined by the trial judge, citing the unique nature of interlocutory injunctions and the potential for material to be used later in the litigation.

The 78-year-old plaintiff, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant private lenders from enforcing a $500,000 high-interest mortgage registered against her home.

The plaintiff alleged the mortgage was unconscionable and procured through fraudulent misrepresentations by door-to-door salespeople.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff only needed to show a serious question to be tried, but had in fact established a strong prima facie case of both unconscionability and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court concluded the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if forced from her home, and the balance of convenience favoured protecting her interests pending trial.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a housing co-operative.

He argued procedural unfairness regarding the scheduling of an expedited remote hearing, the use of security video evidence, and findings on conduct not in the eviction notices, as well as a failure to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the remote hearing process or the admission of evidence, and concluding that the adjudicator had appropriately considered and accommodated his disability by delaying the eviction.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority granting a permit to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to build a retaining wall on Sauble Beach.

The applicant also challenged the Town's decision to proceed without obtaining a permit under the Endangered Species Act or conducting an environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court found the Authority's decision to issue the permit was unreasonable because it failed to properly apply the test under O. Reg. 151/06 and failed to consider the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement regarding dynamic beach hazards.

The permit was quashed and remitted to the Authority.

The challenges to the Town's decisions regarding the Endangered Species Act and Environmental Assessment Act were dismissed as premature and lacking the proper respondents.

The applicant sought to quash a permit issued by the conservation authority to the respondent town for work on a beach, which was scheduled before the return of the Piping Plover.

The Divisional Court issued a bottom-line endorsement granting the application in part, quashing the permit, and remitting the matter back to the conservation authority.

The balance of the application was dismissed, with full reasons to follow.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

Following a successful appeal regarding the operation of a homeless shelter, the appellant church sought full indemnity costs of $163,479.54, arguing it was a public interest litigant.

The respondent municipality argued no costs should be awarded as it was also acting in the public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding the case did not meet the exceptional threshold for full indemnity costs under Carter, nor did the municipality's enforcement of its by-law exempt it from the normal costs rules.

Costs were awarded to the appellant on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $90,000.

The appellant church operated a homeless shelter in its basement.

The respondent municipality sought an injunction to stop the shelter, arguing it violated the local zoning by-law which permitted 'church' uses but prohibited soup kitchens and food banks.

The application judge granted the injunction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in his interpretation of the by-law.

The Court found that the homeless shelter fell within the by-law's definition of 'church-sponsored community activities and projects'.

The appeal was allowed and the injunction was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment in employment against his employer and his former common-law partner, who was a board member.

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

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the employer, an Aboriginal employment assistance centre, as it fell under provincial labour relations.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the alleged comments made in the context of a relationship breakdown did not amount to workplace sexual harassment or discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

They requested an interim remedy, alleging the respondent was threatening to evict them.

The Tribunal denied the request because it was not supported by signed declarations as required by Rule 23.3(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and the respondent established that no eviction had been threatened or initiated.

The applicants also failed to demonstrate that an interim remedy was necessary to ensure an effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The applicant brought a request to remove his immediate supervisor as a personal respondent and to add his former personal partner and former Board member of the respondent organization as a personal respondent in an application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal applied the established factors for adding and removing parties.

Finding that the organizational respondent could be held liable for the supervisor's conduct and that the proposed new respondent's individual conduct was a central issue, the Tribunal granted both requests and amended the style of cause accordingly.

A municipality sought an injunction preventing a church from operating a homeless men’s shelter in the basement of its church building in contravention of a zoning by-law enacted under the Planning Act.

The respondent argued the shelter constituted a church-sponsored activity or accessory use and alternatively claimed enforcement infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

The court held the shelter constituted an “emergency shelter” use not permitted within the zoning designation and not an accessory church use.

Enforcement of the zoning by-law did not substantially interfere with religious freedom because the restriction concerned the location of the shelter rather than the ability to operate one.

A declaration and permanent injunction were granted prohibiting continued operation of the shelter at the property.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the termination of his employment.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The Tribunal granted CUPE intervenor status, noting that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications brought by bargaining unit members.

Following the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding related to policing during the G20 Summit, the court determined the costs payable to a successful defendant.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be ordered because the case raised novel legal issues and matters of public interest.

The court held that although the action involved issues of public interest, the certification motion was seriously flawed and the novelty argument was unfounded.

Applying the governing principles for class proceeding costs and considering comparable certification cost awards, the court concluded that a reduced costs award was appropriate.

Costs were fixed at $200,000 in fees plus disbursements and applicable taxes, payable by the plaintiff and indemnified by the Class Proceedings Fund.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied entry to a free public reception at a film festival.

The respondents maintained the applicant was denied entry because the venue was at capacity.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidentiary basis or reasonable prospect of connecting the applicant's exclusion from the reception to his alleged disability.