Rosanne Giulietti

The defendants brought a Rule 21.01 motion to strike a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging unlawful interference with a towing and parking enforcement business and seeking reinstatement of a licence suspended by police.

The plaintiffs alleged that police deliberately failed to enter tow cards into CPIC, resulting in theft charges and business losses.

The court held that municipalities exercising regulatory powers in good faith enjoy relative immunity unless their conduct is irrational, and the pleadings failed to properly particularize allegations of malice.

The court also found that the challenge to the licence suspension constituted a matter for judicial review before the Divisional Court rather than an action in the Superior Court.

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck.

A natural gas distributor applied to quash a municipal by-law imposing a pavement degradation fee on entities excavating city roads, arguing the fee was ultra vires under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and O. Reg. 595/06.

The applicant contended the fee impermissibly targeted gas distributors, was unrelated to permit issuance costs, and improperly related to the transportation of natural resources.

The municipality argued the fee formed part of a broader regulatory scheme governing road excavation and utility cuts and was authorized as a permit-related charge.

The court applied a broad and purposive interpretation of municipal powers and held the fee was reasonably connected to a regulatory scheme managing road infrastructure and excavation permits.

The application to quash the by-law was dismissed.

The applicant police officers sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering the production of their personnel files in relation to a human rights complaint.

After the police service confirmed no responsive records existed, the respondents argued the application was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy remained.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting that recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding police disciplinary records should be applied in a genuine adversarial context.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Toronto Licensing Tribunal decision revoking their tow truck operator licenses.

They argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment when their agent failed to appear, instead allowing two police witnesses to testify in chief.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the agent's subsequent refusal to cross-examine the witnesses and the Tribunal's overall fair conduct cured any initial prejudice.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new hearing, finding the initial refusal to adjourn and the admission of highly prejudicial, uninterrupted testimony fundamentally unfair.

The applicant, a non-profit organization serving the Vietnamese community, sought judicial review of the City's decision refusing permission to fly the flag of the former South Vietnam on a courtesy flagpole at City Hall.

The City's policy restricted national flags to those of nations recognized by the federal Department of Foreign Affairs.

The Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the decision but dismissed the application.

The court found no violation of freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as the flagpole was not a public forum and the policy did not aim to suppress expression.

The court also rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations and unreasonableness.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to continue, subject to conditions, the restaurant licences of four establishments with histories of public health violations.

The City argued the decisions were patently unreasonable and that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by misunderstanding its jurisdiction, failing to provide adequate reasons, and interfering in the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were supported by the evidence and that the hearings were conducted fairly without any breach of natural justice.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario revoking its liquor licence.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding noise issues that had the potential to fundamentally alter the Board's conclusion on the public interest.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing, with interim conditions imposed on the appellant's operations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal suspending his taxicab driver's licence for thirty days for breaching the municipal code.

The applicant, representing himself, alleged a conspiracy by city employees to harass him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal proceedings were conducted fairly, in accordance with natural justice, and that the findings were supported by evidence.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.