Ryan Teschner

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director dismissing his complaint against the police.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of a multi-year organized crime operation involving the police and government agencies, but refused to provide particulars of specific police misconduct.

The Director dismissed the complaint as frivolous and lacking an objective air of reality.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's decision was reasonable and the process was fair, as the complaint contained no specific allegations of police misconduct and lacked objective evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

A third party sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim arising from a fuel oil tank leak that contaminated neighbouring properties.

The moving party argued that its role in promulgating industry standards constituted a policy decision for which it was immune from civil liability.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that no duty of care could exist, particularly regarding allegations of inadequate standards, failure to warn of known hazards, negligent investigation, and proximity between the regulator and affected parties.

Given the incomplete evidentiary record and the novelty of the duty-of-care issue, the court declined to grant summary judgment.

The matter was left open for reconsideration after discovery and a fuller factual record.

The application judge failed to provide any reasons for his decision, making appellate review impossible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a different judge of the Superior Court.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association sought access to a police report and legal advice regarding an investigation into alleged police misconduct in a murder case.

The Minister refused disclosure under the law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The CLA argued that the Act's failure to apply a public interest override to these exemptions violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 2(b) does not guarantee access to all government documents, but only where access is necessary for meaningful public discussion and does not encroach on protected privileges.

The Court found no Charter violation, as the exemptions themselves already incorporate public interest considerations.

The matter regarding the law enforcement exemption was remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the Minister's exercise of discretion.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike out applications brought by four physicians.

The physicians had applied to the Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The College argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matters should be heard by the administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for striking pleadings and properly concluded it was not plain and obvious the applications would fail, as the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction over Charter challenges.