Lise Favreau

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP refusing to pay medical accounts submitted more than six months after services were rendered.

The applicants argued that the delay, caused by the incompetence of their office manager, constituted 'extenuating circumstances' under the Health Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the General Manager's decision, finding it reasonable to distinguish between catastrophic events beyond a physician's control and administrative or operational errors within their control.

The applicants, litigation guardians for severely developmentally delayed adults residing in Schedule I facilities, sought judicial review of the Minister of Community and Social Services' decision to close the remaining institutions.

The applicants argued the Minister lacked statutory authority under the Developmental Services Act to close the facilities.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister's broad discretionary power to establish and maintain facilities included the power to close them.

However, the Court declared that the consent of the incapable residents' substitute decision makers is required before they can be transferred to community placements, invoking the parens patriae jurisdiction to protect their fundamental interests.

The defendant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sued the provincial government in negligence after the deceased contracted West Nile Virus, alleging the government failed to reasonably implement its prevention plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail, as the relevant public health legislation conferred sufficient powers on the government to potentially ground a private law duty of care at the operational level.

The appeal was dismissed.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which had set aside a direction from the Medical Review Committee requiring a paediatric respirologist to reimburse OHIP approximately $76,000 for 'General Assessments'.

The Board found that the definition of a general assessment did not require a specialist to perform a full bodily assessment, but rather an assessment of the relevant body parts affected by the patient's condition.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on the evidence.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, were injured during a shore excursion in Grenada while on a Caribbean cruise.

They sued the Canadian tour operator, the American cruise line, and the Grenadian excursion provider and driver in Ontario.

The Grenadian defendants brought a motion to stay the action against them on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal applied the real and substantial connection test and held that Ontario courts could not assume jurisdiction over the Grenadian defendants, as they had no connection to Ontario and it would be unfair to require them to litigate there.

The appellants, Ontario residents, were injured during an excursion tour while vacationing in Costa Rica.

They brought an action in Ontario against several defendants, including the Costa Rican company that sold the excursion.

The Costa Rican company successfully moved to stay the action on the basis that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction and, alternatively, that Costa Rica was the more convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal applied the real and substantial connection test and the principles of order and fairness, concluding that the Ontario courts could not assume jurisdiction over the foreign defendant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, purchased a package holiday that included a cruise and a shore excursion in Grenada.

During the excursion, the plaintiff suffered carbon monoxide poisoning in a vehicle operated by the Grenadian defendants.

The plaintiffs sued the tour operators and the Grenadian defendants in Ontario.

The Grenadian defendants moved to stay the proceedings, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was not the convenient forum.

The motions judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the subject matter of the action, and that Ontario was the most convenient forum.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for injuries sustained during a shore excursion in Grenada.

The defendants, residents of Grenada, were served ex juris and brought a motion to set aside service and stay the claims, which was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision because he failed to distinguish between the tests for jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, and there were conflicting decisions on whether a plaintiff's residence and ongoing damages in Ontario are sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection.