Lise Favreau

Pharmacy and retailer appellants challenged provincial regulations that barred private-label generic drugs from formulary listing and interchangeable designation.

The Court reaffirmed that delegated legislation is presumed valid and is ultra vires only if inconsistent with statutory purpose or outside delegated authority.

It held the regulations aligned with the legislative scheme aimed at reducing prescription drug costs and promoting transparent pricing while maintaining safety.

The measures were rationally connected to preventing circumvention of rebate and allowance restrictions through affiliated manufacturers.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion seeking leave to file seven reply affidavits in an application for judicial review concerning a decision to allow increased sulphur production at a Suncor refinery.

The respondents objected to the vast majority of the proposed reply evidence on grounds including improper case-splitting, irrelevance, and that the evidence was available earlier.

The court held that a less strict standard for reply evidence applies on an application prior to cross-examinations than at trial.

Applying this standard, the court permitted most of the reply evidence, striking only portions that were purely confirmatory, raised new issues that should have been in the main case, or repeated earlier evidence verbatim.

Following the dismissal of the foreign tobacco defendants' jurisdictional appeals, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the appeals.

The appellants argued that costs should be capped at $100,000, asserting that the Crown treated the five appeals as one by filing a common factum.

The Court rejected this argument, finding no $100,000 ceiling exists for costs awards in the Court of Appeal.

Given the complexity, the $50 billion stakes, and the necessity of responding to five separate appeals, the Court fixed the Crown's partial indemnity costs at $237,332.50, apportioned between the BAT and RJR appellants.

The appellant, a recipient of Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal had upheld the Director's decision to recover an overpayment resulting from a rent reduction ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant argued the rent reduction constituted damages for breach of contract and should be exempt from income calculations under the regulations.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal correctly interpreted the regulation to exclude only damages for pain and suffering or actual expenses from injury.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's procedural practice of bifurcating human rights challenges from the merits of the appeal, finding it consistent with procedural fairness.

The applicants, owners of designated physiotherapy clinics, sought judicial review to quash Regulation 138/13, which delisted their clinics and changed the funding model for physiotherapy services.

They argued the regulation was enacted in violation of a government policy requiring a 45-day consultation period, thereby breaching their legitimate expectations of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the policy did not create a clear, unambiguous, and unqualified representation, as it expressly allowed for exceptions.

Furthermore, the court noted that quashing the regulation would be futile, as the government could simply re-enact it after a formal consultation period, having already heard and rejected the applicants' views.

The appellant, Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, appealed an order declaring that a claim brought by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board in a proposed class action was not a 'Released Claim' under a 2008 Comprehensive Agreement.

The 2008 Agreement settled claims between tobacco companies and government entities regarding tobacco smuggling.

The Court of Appeal held that while the claims might fall within the definition of 'Released Claims', the Board was acting as an agent for tobacco producers to enforce contracts, not as an agent for the Crown.

Therefore, the Board was not a 'Releasing Entity' under the agreement, and the claims were not released.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

The defendant appealed an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

In his reasons, the motion judge stated that the plaintiff had established a prima facie duty of care, but the formal order simply dismissed the motion without invoking Rule 20.04(4) to make a binding determination of law.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's finding was not binding on the trial judge and the order was interlocutory, not final.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ontario sued foreign and domestic tobacco manufacturers under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009 to recover health care costs.

Six foreign defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

The foreign defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory claim was analogous to a tort committed in Ontario, establishing a presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's findings that Ontario established a good arguable case and affirmed the costs award.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) finding its interactive digital media product ineligible for a certificate.

The OMDC determined the primary purpose of the applicant's website was marketing and promotion, rather than to educate, inform, or entertain.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the decision, finding it fell within the OMDC's specialized expertise.

The court also dismissed the applicant's argument that the OMDC breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose a 2004 opinion, noting the administrative nature of the decision and the extensive prior communications between the parties.

The defendant Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action alleged that the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) was negligent and breached a fiduciary duty by reinstating a defaulting payor's passport, allowing him to leave the country and evade support arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that whether FRO owed a duty of care or a fiduciary duty to the support recipients were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The applicant sought a declaration that a proposed class action brought by a tobacco growers’ marketing board against a tobacco manufacturer was not barred as a released claim under a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving governmental claims relating to tobacco smuggling and unpaid taxes.

The respondents argued that the class action fell within the broad release provisions and that the marketing board was effectively a Crown entity bound by the agreement.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation governing releases, including contextual interpretation and the rule that general release language is limited to matters within the parties’ contemplation at the time of execution.

It concluded that the settlement agreement addressed governmental tax‑related claims arising from smuggling and did not extend to private claims by growers for price differentials.

The class proceeding was therefore not a released claim by a releasing entity.

The Independent Police Review Director brought a motion to quash a summons to witness issued to an investigator and for a declaration that counsel to the OIPRD was not required to bring the investigative file to her cross-examination.

The underlying application for judicial review sought to defer interviews of two police officers facing criminal charges until after their criminal trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the evidence sought from the investigator and the investigative file was not relevant or necessary for the judicial review application, as it exceeded the narrow focus of the proceeding.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Ministry of the Environment decision approving an increase in sulphur production at a Suncor refinery, arguing the failure to conduct a cumulative effects assessment violated their Charter rights.

The respondents brought motions to strike the application as a collateral attack on prior approvals and to strike much of the applicants' affidavit evidence.

The applicants brought a cross-motion for a protective costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike the application, finding it was not plain and obvious it would fail.

The court allowed the motion to strike evidence in part, striking improper expert opinion and unattributed hearsay, but leaving relevance determinations to the hearing panel.

The motion for a protective costs order was dismissed, as the applicants had pro bono representation and the narrow administrative issue did not meet the exceptional public importance threshold.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The applicant argued the Director failed to comply with regulatory requirements and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both personal and public interest standing.

In the alternative, the court held that the Director's decision to dispense with strict compliance with notice requirements was reasonable, and the consultation process met the common law requirements of procedural fairness.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.

The Crown brought an action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act against several domestic and foreign tobacco companies, claiming $50 billion for health care costs related to tobacco disease.

Six foreign defendants brought motions to set aside service ex juris and stay or dismiss the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Crown had established a good arguable case that the foreign defendants conspired and acted in concert to commit tobacco-related wrongs, establishing a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart and Katz Group, successfully challenged provincial regulations banning pharmacies from selling private label generic drugs at the Divisional Court.

The Minister of Health appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the regulations were intra vires the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act.

The Court held that the regulations validly imposed conditions on the drug supply chain to control prescription drug costs, rather than constituting an unauthorized prohibition, interference with commercial rights, or illegal discrimination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a permit issued by the Minister of Natural Resources under the Endangered Species Act, which allowed for the disturbance of species at risk during the construction of a new bridge and parkway.

The applicant argued the Minister failed to apply the precautionary principle, improperly consulted experts, ignored relevant information, and was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision was a matter of public policy entitled to broad deference, the statutory requirements for consultation and opinion-forming were met, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias given the Minister's political and legislative functions.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to stay its application in favour of arbitration.

The dispute arose from a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding tobacco smuggling, which contained an arbitration clause.

The appellant sought declarations regarding whether a class action brought by a tobacco board constituted a released claim under the agreement, affecting the respondent's right to escrow settlement payments.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that while the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine issues under section 7 of the agreement, the court must determine issues under section 15 because the tobacco board was not a party to the arbitration agreement and its rights were directly implicated.