Liam Ledgerwood

The London District Catholic School Board applied for relief from the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) provisions, specifically sections 5, 5.2, and 5.3, due to a quorum issue caused by seven of eight trustees declaring conflicts of interest.

These conflicts arose from family members being employed by the Board, particularly concerning the ratification of a collective agreement and the approval of the annual budget.

The court found that while section 7(3) of the MCIA (quorum less than two) was not engaged, the exemption under section 4(k) applied, as the pecuniary interests of the trustees were deemed too remote or insignificant to reasonably influence their decisions on these specific matters.

The court granted relief for the specific collective agreement and budgets but declined a sweeping general exemption for all future matters, emphasizing a case-by-case application of section 4(k) and the importance of self-policing and accountability.

The applicant, a telecommunications contractor, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that refused to change its business classification from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, or alternatively, to reclassify it from Rate Group 704 to Rate Group 983.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the WSIAT's conclusions were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, Myriam Michail, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing her anti-SLAPP motion against the London District Catholic School Board's application to declare her a vexatious litigant.

The motion judge found that Michail had not established that the Board's application related to a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the determination that vexatious proceedings do not relate to a matter of public interest and that the Board's application aimed to prevent vexatious litigation, not to suppress expression.

The Court also upheld the costs award against Michail and declined to consider new constitutional questions raised for the first time on appeal.

The appellant, Myriam Michail, moved to review a case management order that required her motion challenging the constitutionality of s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act to be treated as a motion for leave to introduce a new issue on appeal and heard concurrently with her appeal, with a 30-day perfection deadline for the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The court noted that the appellant had other available remedies to obtain access to audio recordings or transcripts of the proceeding below, apart from a constitutional challenge, and had not availed herself of those remedies.

The constitutional challenge was deemed properly dealt with on the appeal itself.

Costs were awarded to the London District Catholic School Board.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the responding party's underlying application, which sought to declare her a vexatious litigant.

The moving party argued the application was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) intended to silence her.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while bringing legal proceedings constitutes expression, vexatious litigation does not relate to a matter of public interest.

The court held that the responding party was merely seeking a procedural gatekeeping order, not attempting to suppress protected expression.

The moving party sought a motion to review a decision dismissing her motion for an order exempting her from the requirement to sign an undertaking not to disseminate audio recordings of court proceedings.

She also sought permission to video record the motion to review hearing itself.

The court held that parties are not entitled to obtain and disseminate audio or video recordings of proceedings on their own terms.

The open courts principle does not automatically override statutory restrictions on recording.

The court dismissed the motion to review and awarded costs to the respondent London District Catholic School Board.

The respondents moved to quash an appeal brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on the basis that the appellant was seeking to appeal interlocutory orders of the Superior Court of Justice, which should have been appealed to the Divisional Court with leave.

The appellant sought to appeal orders made by Justice Lynne Leitch and Justice A. Duncan Grace, including an order transferring a judicial review application to the Divisional Court and a costs order of $10,000.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and granted the motion to quash, awarding nominal costs of $2,000 to the respondents.