M. Michele Smith

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions to determine whether a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice could sit outside Ontario to hear a motion concerning a pan-Canadian class action settlement.

The Attorney General of Ontario objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing outside its territorial boundaries.

The court held that where it has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it possesses the inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, which includes the discretion to sit outside the province.

The court found that holding a joint hearing with supervisory judges from British Columbia and Quebec in Alberta was in the interests of justice to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent orders.

The plaintiffs sued Ontario in negligence, alleging the province failed to prevent the outbreak of West Nile Virus in 2002, resulting in the deceased contracting the virus and dying from complications.

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

The motions judge and Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck the claim, holding that the Health Protection and Promotion Act imposes a general public law duty to protect health, but does not create a private law duty of care owed to specific individuals to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

The applicant, operator of the Highway 407 toll road, sought an order of mandamus compelling the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to refuse to validate or issue vehicle permits for individuals who failed to pay tolls.

The Registrar had refused to act, arguing that he had a duty to ensure the applicant complied with the statutory scheme and that individuals were not wrongly denied plate renewals.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Highway 407 Act imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to deny permits upon receiving notice of non-payment.

The court held that the Registrar has no discretion or oversight role to look behind the notices or compliance certificates, and declined to exercise its residual discretion to refuse mandamus.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles sought leave to file a factum exceeding the prescribed page limit by an additional ten pages, citing the complexity of the differing legal and factual conclusions.

The court reluctantly granted the request, expecting it might assist the panel.

Consequently, the court also granted the applicant leave to file a reply factum of up to 15 pages, leaving the issue of costs regarding the extended facta to the panel.

The applicant brought a motion regarding refusals and undertakings arising from examinations in a judicial review application concerning the respondent's authority to enforce notice of licence cancellation.

The court reviewed transcripts and correspondence, ruling on obvious relevancy issues and leaving the remainder to the Divisional Court panel to determine, noting the competing views on the scope of the record.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an order for DNA testing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's assertion that DNA testing would affect his risk assessment or the Board's dispositions was speculative and highly unlikely.

The Court declined to determine whether the Board had jurisdiction to make the requested order.

The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the provincial government was negligent in failing to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions regarding the threshold test for establishing a duty of care for public authorities and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

A stay of the order was also granted pending the appeal.

Following a remand from the Divisional Court to determine the monetary sum, if any, owed to the complainant for direct discrimination, the Board of Inquiry issued an interim award.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission subsequently acknowledged that, based on the interim award, no monies were owing to the complainant and agreed that convening a hearing would be wasteful.

The respondents concurred, and the complainant did not comment.

Consequently, the Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints.