8 total
Security for costs refused where impecunious plaintiffs had potentially meritorious claim.
The defendants appealed a master's order dismissing their motions for security for costs against corporate plaintiffs who had ceased operations and lacked assets in Ontario.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not impecunious because the principals had personal assets, including an unencumbered home and retirement savings.
The court held that the master did not err in concluding the plaintiffs were genuinely impecunious and that requiring security would force abandonment of the claim.
The court accepted that the principals' assets were effectively constrained by debts, potential tax liabilities, and the need to fund the litigation.
Because the claim was not plainly devoid of merit, the master properly exercised discretion to refuse security for costs.
Motion challenging single Commissioner's jurisdiction to complete sanctions hearing dismissed under SPPA section 4.4(1).
The moving parties brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of a single Commissioner to complete a sanctions hearing after the term of the other panel member expired.
The moving parties argued that proceeding before a single member violated the audi alteram partem principle and the quorum requirements of the Securities Act.
The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that section 4.4(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the remaining member to complete the hearing and give a decision, and that section 32 of the SPPA resolves any conflict with the Securities Act's quorum requirements in favour of the SPPA.
Appeal of Board decision refusing to revoke liquor licence dismissed; correct legal standard applied.
The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Board decision refusing to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.
The Registrar sought revocation because the respondent's sole officer and director was actively involved in the Hell's Angels.
The Registrar argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct 'reasonable grounds for belief' standard and properly assessed all pertinent factors regarding the operation of the licensed establishment.
Security for costs denied where corporate plaintiffs were impecunious and claim not plainly meritless.
The defendants brought parallel motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against corporate and partnership plaintiffs who alleged losses exceeding $1,000,000 arising from a trading incident involving brokerage services and trading software.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.
The court reviewed the financial circumstances of the plaintiffs and their principals and considered whether they could reasonably post security or obtain a letter of credit.
Finding that ordering security would effectively force abandonment of a claim that was not plainly devoid of merit, and that the plaintiffs were effectively impecunious, the court declined to require security for costs.
The motions were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Interim order suspending physician's practice quashed for lack of evidence of probable harm and procedural unfairness.
The applicant, an anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the respondent's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee that effectively shut down his practice following a patient's death.
The court found that the Committee's decision to issue the interim order was unreasonable because there was no evidence of probable harm to future patients, only speculation based on a single incident.
Furthermore, the court held that the Committee breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed materials and improperly considered evidence protected under the Evidence Act.
The application was allowed and the interim order was quashed.
Judicial review of Law Society's exam accommodation decision dismissed; no denial of procedural fairness found.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Professional Development & Competency Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which found that the accommodations granted to her for writing the bar admission examinations were adequate.
The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and natural justice, citing interruptions by the Chair, failure to consider her reply and medical evidence, and an alleged discriminatory policy change.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had a full opportunity to make submissions, the Committee considered her evidence, and the accommodations granted were more than adequate.
Human rights application deferred pending outcome of concurrent judicial review on the same issues.
The applicant alleged discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada for failing to accommodate her in the licensing process.
The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application because the applicant had a pending Application for Judicial Review before the Divisional Court on the same facts and issues.
The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting the judicial review was scheduled to be heard imminently.
Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over GST rebate claims; Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction.
The appellants brought an action in the Superior Court claiming they were exempt from paying GST on certain financial services under the Excise Tax Act.
The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Tax Court of Canada had exclusive jurisdiction.
On appeal, the appellants argued the Superior Court had constitutional or concurrent jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the claim was not constitutional in nature and that the Tax Court of Canada Act, read with the Excise Tax Act, clearly gave the Tax Court exclusive jurisdiction over GST rebate claims.
