Leslie McIntosh

The applicant sought judicial review for a declaration that the Ministry of Transportation unreasonably withheld a clearance letter for a subdivision development.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the Ministry was still actively reviewing the engineering drawings.

The Court further held that the appropriate forum to address difficulties in implementing draft plan approval conditions is the Ontario Municipal Board, which retained jurisdiction over the matter.

The Crown moved to strike portions of two affidavits filed by the Ontario Propane Association in support of its judicial review application challenging O. Reg. 440/08.

The Crown argued the impugned sections contained improper legal argument and irrelevant exhibits.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, applying the general principle that issues of admissibility and relevance of affidavit evidence should be determined by the panel hearing the judicial review application, rather than on an interlocutory basis.

The plaintiff brought an action against Ontario and two hospitals after her spouse contracted SARS and died during the 2003 outbreak.

Ontario moved to strike the claim, arguing it did not owe a private law duty of care.

The motion judge refused to strike substantial parts of the claim.

On appeal, adopting the reasons in the related Williams appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed Ontario's appeal, struck the claim in its entirety against Ontario, and dismissed the action, finding no private law duty of care was owed.

The estate trustee and family members of a person who died after contracting SARS sued Ontario, alleging negligence in failing to protect the deceased from the virus.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing it owed no private law duty of care.

The motion judge struck part of the claim but refused to strike it entirely.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, adopting its reasons in a companion case to hold that it was plain and obvious Ontario did not owe the deceased a private law duty of care.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Ontario on behalf of individuals who contracted SARS during the 2003 outbreak, alleging negligence in the province's handling of the crisis.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal applied the Cooper-Anns test and concluded that no relationship of proximity existed between the plaintiff and Ontario capable of giving rise to a private law duty of care.

The court held that the government's public law duty to protect the health of residents does not translate into a private law duty owed to specific individuals.

The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, Ontario's cross-appeal was allowed, and the claim was struck in its entirety.

The plaintiffs sued Ontario for damages suffered as a result of contracting SARS during the 2003 outbreak, alleging negligence, breach of statutory duty, conflict of interest, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge struck parts of the claim but allowed the negligence, conflict of interest, and Charter claims to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was plain and obvious the allegations did not give rise to a private law duty of care or a viable Charter claim.

The appeal was allowed and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

The plaintiffs, nurses who contracted SARS during the 2003 outbreak, sued Ontario for negligence and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

Ontario moved to strike the claim, arguing it owed no private law duty of care to the nurses.

The motion judge struck parts of the claim but allowed the action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal struck the entire claim, holding that Ontario's duty to protect the public from communicable diseases does not create a private law duty of care to individual healthcare workers.

The Court also found no basis for the section 7 Charter claim, as the government's actions were not arbitrary.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant's pleading wholly failed to plead any particulars of the claims alleged.

Costs of $6,250 were awarded to each of the respondents.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that the respondent employer was not obliged to pay the Ontario Health Premium (OHP) on behalf of its employees under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the strong privative clause in the Police Services Act.

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion—that the collective agreement language was intended to cover the procurement of OHIP coverage rather than a general health tax like the OHP—was not patently unreasonable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order directing the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry to state a case to the Divisional Court regarding whether the proposed evidence of two witnesses fell within the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.

The evidence concerned a sexual assault reported contemporaneously, which the applicants argued did not constitute 'historical abuse' under the mandate.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner had not exceeded his jurisdiction and that the evidence was reasonably relevant to the Inquiry's mandate to examine the institutional response to allegations of abuse.

A dissenting opinion would have granted the application.

The moving party, THICC, sought a stay of a Master's order requiring the Minister of Health to file a section 10 record that included THICC's allegedly confidential information, pending an appeal of that order.

The underlying judicial review challenged the Minister's approval of hospital infrastructure plans.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the interpretation of a prior consent confidentiality order, irreparable harm if the information was disclosed before the appeal, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay to preserve the appeal's utility.

The appellant sued an Assistant Crown Attorney for defamation after the respondent provided incorrect information about the appellant's criminal record to another Crown Attorney during a bail hearing.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the action was statute-barred and protected by qualified and absolute privilege, with no evidence of malice to defeat the privileges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing there was no genuine issue for trial regarding malice and that absolute privilege applied to communications made in respect of court proceedings.

Appeal concerning whether terminated members of a defined benefit pension plan are entitled to immediate distribution of a proportional share of actuarial surplus on a partial wind-up.

The Court held that the applicable standard of review of the Financial Services Tribunal’s interpretation of s. 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act was correctness.

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation to the text, scheme, and purpose of the legislation, the Court concluded that s. 70(6) requires the realization and distribution of the affected members’ pro rata share of surplus as of the effective date of partial wind-up, if they are otherwise entitled.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This is a note reporting that the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services).

The case involved the distribution of an actuarial surplus upon the partial wind up of a defined benefit pension plan under the Pension Benefits Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) sought judicial review of an order by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring it to disclose an electronic database containing the personal information of over 10 million Ontario residents to a collection agency.

The Commissioner had found that disclosure was expressly authorized by the Assessment Act, relying on previous case law regarding municipal election records.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the Assessment Act did not expressly authorize disclosure of the electronic records and that the Commissioner failed to properly consider the differing statutory contexts and privacy interests.

The Court also held that MPAC was entitled to refuse disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the information was already available to the public in paper form.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for an assault with a weapon due to a mental disorder.

The Review Board ordered his transfer to a medium security hospital with privileges, applying the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test to the conditions of his detention.

The Court of Appeal held this test only applied to the choice of disposition, not the conditions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' requirement under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code applies to both the disposition and the particular conditions forming part of it.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) ruling.

The OMB had found that the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (OPA 2), which restricted the demolition and conversion of rental housing, was illegal and conflicted with the Tenant Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal held that while the OMB had limited jurisdiction to determine whether OPA 2 was an official plan within the meaning of the Planning Act, it erred in concluding that the City lacked the authority to enact it.

The Court found that the Planning Act permitted municipalities to include policies ensuring an adequate supply of rental housing.

Furthermore, OPA 2 did not conflict with the Tenant Protection Act, as dual compliance was possible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought an interim order restraining the Minister of Health from approving plans for the involvement of for-profit corporations in the design or operation of two hospitals, pending the adjournment of their application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the projects would breach the Public Hospitals Act, and failed to show irreparable harm if the interim order was not granted.

The respondent, who suffers from bipolar disorder, refused proposed medical treatment.

The attending physician found him incapable of making this decision, and the Consent and Capacity Board confirmed this finding.

On judicial review, the Superior Court of Justice overturned the Board's decision, finding it unreasonable and based on a misapplication of the statutory test for capacity.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of incapacity was unreasonable because it conflated the respondent's best interests with his capacity to decide, and failed to recognize that the respondent understood his condition and the consequences of refusing treatment.

The Minister of Labour appointed retired judges to chair compulsory arbitration boards for hospital and nursing home labour disputes under s. 6(5) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The unions challenged the appointments, arguing the Minister was required to select arbitrators from a mutually agreed roster and that retired judges lacked labour relations expertise and independence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Minister was not restricted to a specific roster and retired judges as a class were not biased, the Minister's appointments were patently unreasonable because he expressly excluded the relevant criteria of labour relations expertise and broad acceptability within the labour relations community, which were essential to the legislative scheme.