Sandy Lockhart

The applicant, newly self-represented, sought an adjournment of a long-scheduled merits hearing two weeks before it was to commence.

He argued he needed time to prepare, respond to a parallel injunction hearing, and gather new evidence.

The Capital Markets Tribunal applied the test under subrule 34(1) of its Rules of Procedure, which requires exceptional circumstances to grant an adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's change in representation, the parallel proceeding, and his desire to adduce new evidence did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The adjournment motion was dismissed.

The applicant, Internet Sciences Inc., failed to attend a case management hearing and refused to participate in the proceeding unless its demands, including the removal of the adjudicator for alleged bias, were met.

The adjudicator proceeded in the applicant's absence, dismissing its motion to remove the Ontario Securities Commission as a party and its motion for the adjudicator's recusal, finding no factual basis for the bias allegations.

Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety on the basis that it had been abandoned due to the applicant's refusal to participate and cooperate with the Tribunal's process.

The applicant, a self-represented reporting issuer, brought a motion seeking the recusal of the adjudicator for a reasonable apprehension of bias, and a motion to vary the adjudicator's prior reasons for decision under s. 144.1 of the Securities Act.

The bias allegations stemmed from the adjudicator's conduct during a case management hearing, including cautioning the applicant about citing non-existent rules and the potential for artificial intelligence hallucinations.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator also dismissed the motion to vary, concluding that the requested variations were merely attempts to tinker with the language of the reasons and were not in the public interest.

An alternative request for a permanent confidentiality order over the reasons was also dismissed.

The City of Brampton sought costs after successfully moving to strike portions of the applicants' claim regarding the Tamil Genocide Monument.

The applicants argued that no costs should be awarded because they were public interest litigants and of limited financial means.

The court found that while the underlying constitutional challenge was public interest litigation, the struck claims under the Building Code and Planning Act were meritless fishing expeditions.

The court rejected the impecuniosity argument due to a lack of evidentiary foundation.

The applicants were ordered to pay $10,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, a self-represented corporate entity, sought a review of a decision denying its application for listing on the Canadian Securities Exchange.

At a case management hearing, the applicant requested a highly compressed timeline for hearing its interlocutory motions and the merits application.

The Tribunal rejected the compressed timeline, noting the need for amended materials, proper disclosure, and adequate preparation time.

The Tribunal set a schedule for the exchange of materials and scheduled oral hearings by videoconference for the motions and the application.

The Tribunal also relieved the self-represented applicant from strict compliance with Rule 21, allowing it to file a list of documents instead of a formal motion record.

The appellant appealed a Discipline Committee decision awarding $35,000 in costs to the respondents after dismissing professional misconduct charges against them.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee majority erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors by failing to apply the correct legal test, ignoring relevant expert evidence, and considering irrelevant factors such as the complainant's motivation.

The costs award was set aside.

The Chief Adjudicator of the Independent Assessment Process under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement appealed a direction issued by the Eastern Administrative Judge that rescinded an earlier direction prohibiting the Chief Adjudicator's participation in three appeals.

The Chief Adjudicator sought a stay of the second direction pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding serious issues to be tried regarding procedural fairness, the functus officio principle, and the propriety of the RFD process.

The court found that allowing parallel proceedings could result in irreparable harm through inconsistent results and damage to the administration of justice.

The Chief Adjudicator of the Independent Assessment Process under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement sought a stay of a Direction issued by the Eastern Administrative Judge that prohibited the Chief Adjudicator from continuing participation in three appeals, including one before the Supreme Court of Canada scheduled for October 10, 2018.

The Direction was issued without notice to the Chief Adjudicator or other parties and without supporting record.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding serious issues to be tried regarding procedural fairness, jurisdiction, and the scope of participation permitted for administrative tribunals in appeals challenging their decisions.

The Ontario government cancelled an electric car subsidy program but extended it for a two-month transition period.

The applicant, Tesla Motors Canada ULC, was explicitly excluded from this transition program by a condition limiting it to "franchised automobile dealerships." Tesla sought judicial review, arguing the exclusion was arbitrary, unlawful, and made for an improper purpose without procedural fairness.

The court found the decision to exclude Tesla was arbitrary, unrelated to the stated policy goal of protecting small to mid-sized dealers, and constituted an egregious exercise of discretion for an improper purpose.

The court quashed the minister's decision to implement the transitional program.