Lise Favreau

The plaintiff brought an action against Ontario and two hospitals after her spouse contracted SARS and died during the 2003 outbreak.

Ontario moved to strike the claim, arguing it did not owe a private law duty of care.

The motion judge refused to strike substantial parts of the claim.

On appeal, adopting the reasons in the related Williams appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed Ontario's appeal, struck the claim in its entirety against Ontario, and dismissed the action, finding no private law duty of care was owed.

The estate trustee and family members of a person who died after contracting SARS sued Ontario, alleging negligence in failing to protect the deceased from the virus.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing it owed no private law duty of care.

The motion judge struck part of the claim but refused to strike it entirely.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, adopting its reasons in a companion case to hold that it was plain and obvious Ontario did not owe the deceased a private law duty of care.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Ontario on behalf of individuals who contracted SARS during the 2003 outbreak, alleging negligence in the province's handling of the crisis.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal applied the Cooper-Anns test and concluded that no relationship of proximity existed between the plaintiff and Ontario capable of giving rise to a private law duty of care.

The court held that the government's public law duty to protect the health of residents does not translate into a private law duty owed to specific individuals.

The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, Ontario's cross-appeal was allowed, and the claim was struck in its entirety.

Three appellants appealed decisions of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying payment for out-of-country medical treatment because they did not obtain prior written approval from the General Manager of OHIP.

The Divisional Court held that while the Health Insurance Act and regulations do not expressly confer discretion to grant retroactive prior approval, such authority is necessarily implied in urgent circumstances where prior approval cannot be obtained.

The Court rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations, promissory estoppel, limitation periods against minors, and sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Two of the appeals were allowed and remitted to the Board to determine if urgent circumstances existed, while the third was dismissed.

The Canadian Medical Protective Association and the Ontario Medical Association brought applications for judicial review of an Adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of a 2004 Memorandum of Understanding under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicants argued the OMA was not a 'trade union' under the Act and that the agreement contained confidential third-party information exempt from disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, upholding the Adjudicator's broad interpretation of 'trade union' and finding her conclusion that the information was not 'supplied in confidence' to be reasonable.

The applicant drug manufacturer sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs refusing to list its generic drug on the Formulary at 85% of the brand name price.

The Executive Officer insisted on the standard 50% rate, citing an existing agreement with the brand name manufacturer and rejecting the applicant's rationale based on ongoing patent litigation costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Executive Officer's exercise of discretion and interpretation of the confidentiality provisions in the Regulation to be reasonable.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Ministry of Health decision ordering it to pay the long-term care fees of its insured, who was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The insured had applied for a reduction in nursing home co-payments under the Nursing Homes Act, but the Director refused, finding the insurer liable.

The insurer argued it was exempt under s. 75(13) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the reduction was a benefit 'reasonably available' to the insured.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Director's decision was reasonable and that social assistance benefits based on financial need do not fall within the ambit of s. 75(13).

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed entirely with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $1,000.

The defendant, Ontario, sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action and refusing to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff's claim alleged that detaining individuals in jail while awaiting a psychiatric hospital bed under a Criminal Code assessment order violated Charter rights and breached fiduciary duties, relying on the decision in R. v. Hussein.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification decision because the motion judge accepted the plaintiff's legal interpretation of Hussein as a pleaded fact, and because individual issues regarding the separate purposes of detention and assessment could overwhelm common issues.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge's reasons and adding that the appellant's right of review must be pursued by way of judicial review rather than a civil action in the courts.

Seven generic drug manufacturers sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs to designate Apotex's product, Apo-Lisinopril, as a benefit under the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The applicants argued that Apotex could not meet the supply pre-condition at the time of its application due to a patent injunction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Executive Officer correctly interpreted the regulations to require a prospective assessment of the manufacturer's capability to supply the product to meet anticipated demand, rather than requiring sufficient inventory on hand at the moment of application.

The applicants sought leave to bring an application for judicial review before a single judge of the Superior Court pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, arguing urgency.

The matter concerned the proposed designation of Apotex Inc.'s version of Lisinopril as a benefit under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act.

The respondent Minister opposed the application, arguing the urgency was self-created and economic loss was insufficient.

The court granted leave, finding the potential economic loss significant and the applicants' prior inaction not fatal.

A 14-year-old child was apprehended and eventually placed in a secure treatment centre by court order.

The child's family sued the treatment centre and its social worker for negligence, claiming $40,000,000 in damages on the basis that the defendants treated the child as if she had been abused by her parents, which allegedly prevented her reintegration into the family.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that recognizing a duty of care owed by child protection service providers to the family of an apprehended child would create a serious potential for conflict with their paramount statutory duty to act in the best interests of the child.

The Court allowed the appeal and struck the statement of claim.

The appellant's appeal was previously dismissed as premature.

The respondents sought costs for the appeal.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that costs should be deferred to the end of the proceeding, noting the appeal was a discrete episode.

Applying the principle of what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $4,000 for the Chiropractic Review Committee and $3,000 for the General Manager, payable in six months.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought an application regarding an ongoing tribunal hearing involving the Sleep Disorders Centres.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that no significant harm or breach of natural justice would occur by refusing to decide the issue, especially since the report in question had already been disclosed.

The Court concluded that all related issues should be determined by the tribunal based on a full and complete record.

Apotex Inc. sought judicial review of regulations enacted by the Ontario government that reduced the reimbursement price of generic prescription drugs to 50% of brand-name drugs.

Apotex argued the government failed to meet its statutory obligations for public consultation and consideration under Bill 102, and breached procedural fairness based on legitimate expectations.

The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association intervened.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the government met the notice and consultation requirements, the Lieutenant Governor in Council did not exceed its jurisdiction in altering the proposed regulations, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not apply to purely legislative functions.

The plaintiffs, a special needs child and his mother, brought a proposed class action against Ontario for negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging the government unlawfully terminated special needs agreements under section 30 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the statement of claim failed to disclose a cause of action.

The court found that the statutory discretion to enter into voluntary agreements did not create a private law duty of care, and the plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts demonstrating intentional wrongdoing by a public officer required for misfeasance in public office.

The appeal was allowed and the certification order was set aside.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a preliminary decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that struck out certain grounds of appeal regarding an OHIP billing audit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that administrative proceedings should not be fragmented and the appellant could raise the issues after a final decision on the merits.

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed an order granting a requester's counsel access to records subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege for the purpose of arguing a judicial review application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that records subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege may only be disclosed where 'absolutely necessary'.

The Court found no such absolute necessity in this case.

The Court also held that while the procedural provisions of the Access Act prohibiting disclosure apply to the Commissioner, courts on judicial review are governed by their own procedural rules but must adopt procedures to protect confidentiality until a substantive decision is made.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs following the dismissal of their application for judicial review regarding the closure of two long-term care institutions.

Although unsuccessful on the main issue of the Minister's statutory power to close the facilities, the applicants achieved partial success on the issue of consent for relocating residents.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicants a portion of their costs, emphasizing the importance of access to justice and the applicants' role in advocating for the fundamental interests of approximately 1,000 severely disabled adults.