Michele A. Wright

The applicant, the lowest bidder on a municipal construction contract, sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to award the contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant brought the application before the Superior Court of Justice without seeking leave under section 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court declined jurisdiction, holding that applications for judicial review must be brought before the Divisional Court in accordance with the Act and the Consolidated Practice Direction.

The application was dismissed for being brought in the wrong forum.

The appellant, a general contractor, appealed the dismissal of its application for a declaration that the City of Toronto pay a construction holdback of $174,381.14.

The parties had previously entered into a global settlement of five lawsuits for $1,287,500, signing a release for all outstanding claims.

The appellant argued the holdback funds were impressed with a trust under the Construction Lien Act and separate from the settlement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the unambiguous terms of the settlement and release covered all claims, including the holdbacks, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs, taxicab plate owners, brought a proposed $1.7 billion class action against the City of Toronto, alleging negligence in the enforcement of its taxicab bylaws against Uber and in the enactment of a new bylaw permitting private transportation companies.

The plaintiffs moved for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the City's enactment of the bylaw was a legislative function immune from private damage suits, and its enforcement of the bylaws was a public duty that did not create a private law duty of care to the taxicab plate owners for pure economic losses.

The applicant contractor sought judicial review of two decisions by the City of Toronto: a finding by the Fair Wage Office that it breached the Fair Wage Policy, and a subsequent City Council decision disqualifying it from City contracts for two years.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed both decisions, finding that the applicant was denied procedural fairness.

Specifically, the applicant was not provided with notice, disclosure, or the right to be heard before the Fair Wage Office made its breach determination.

The court declined to award damages, noting it lacked jurisdiction to do so on judicial review.

The applicant contractor sought an interim injunction staying the City of Toronto Chief Purchasing Official's decision to temporarily suspend it from bidding on city contracts.

The suspension was based on performance issues that occurred before the new Supplier Code of Conduct took effect.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding the applicant established a strong prima facie case that the Chief Purchasing Official lacked authority to suspend for conduct predating the Code, and that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if unable to bid on imminent solicitations.

On a motion for a sealing order in the context of a municipal enforcement application concerning ride-sharing services, the moving parties sought to keep an insurance policy confidential under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying the Sierra Club test, the court held the evidence did not establish a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest capable of being expressed as a public interest in confidentiality.

The absence of evidence from the insurer and the nature of the document as an insurance policy undermined the claim of confidentiality and competitive harm.

The court further indicated that, even if the first branch had been met, the salutary effects would not outweigh the deleterious effects given the open court principle and the public interest nature of the underlying proceeding.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found discrimination in only two of five alleged instances involving Toronto police officers, awarding $13,000 in compensation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by not conducting the hearing in French and erred in finding insufficient evidence of racial profiling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, noting the applicant never requested a French hearing and the Tribunal's factual findings on racial profiling and compensation were entitled to deference.

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the respondent police officers discriminated against the applicant by making a derogatory comment during fingerprinting and by inappropriately contacting his employer (the Department of National Defence) about his arrest.

The applicant sought over $1.4 million in damages, primarily for lost wages, arguing the police call caused his termination.

The Tribunal found the employer conducted its own investigation and the police call did not cause the job loss, denying the wage loss claim.

The Tribunal awarded $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect based on the objective seriousness of the call and the subjective impact of the events on the applicant.

Claims for legal and transcript costs were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming the '42 Division Police' as the respondent.

Counsel for the Toronto Police Services Board requested clarification on the proper respondent and an extension of time to file a response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting it was inconsistent with previous rulings involving the same respondents.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause on its own motion to name both the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police, and ordered the respondents to file their response by the original deadline.

The appellants challenged the City of Toronto's new municipal limousine licensing scheme, arguing the City exceeded its statutory authority and that specific provisions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's dismissal of the challenge.

The Court found that the City had broad authority under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to enact the by-laws, and there was no evidence of bad faith.

Furthermore, the impugned provisions, including a minimum fare requirement and vehicle ratio requirements, were rationally connected to legitimate municipal objectives such as consumer protection and regulating competition between the taxicab and limousine industries.

The Governing Council of the University of Toronto appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed the Chief Returning Officer's rejection of the respondent's nomination for a student position on the Governing Council.

The lower court found a conflict between the Election Guidelines, which required a candidate to be a member of their constituency throughout the election period, and the University of Toronto Act, which stated every student is eligible for election.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no conflict.

The Court held that 'eligible' does not mean 'entitled,' and the guideline was a valid procedural rule establishing a connection with a constituency.