M.A. Penny

Following the release of its decision allowing the Crown's appeal and setting aside a class action certification order, the Divisional Court entertained post-decision submissions from the respondent based on two new Court of Appeal decisions regarding state liability in negligence.

The court concluded that the new decisions applied settled law and did not alter its previous reasoning.

The court amended its previous disposition to clarify that while the appeal is allowed and the certification order is set aside, the underlying action is not dismissed, leaving that issue for the parties to address below.

Powerhouse Corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision granting it a liquor licence but imposing a condition prohibiting outdoor amplified music at its Cabana pool bar.

The City of Toronto cross-appealed, arguing the licence should have been refused entirely because Powerhouse's application was an abusive attempt to circumvent existing noise conditions on the venue's prior licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals.

The Court held the LAT correctly interpreted its limited jurisdiction under s. 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act and properly applied an objective standard to assess noise disturbances affecting Toronto Island residents.

The Court also rejected Powerhouse's procedural fairness arguments regarding an incomplete hearing transcript and alleged lack of notice.

The plaintiff, acting as litigation guardian for his developmentally disabled daughter, brought a proposed class action against Ontario alleging negligence and section 7 Charter violations regarding the administration of waitlists for adult developmental services.

The motion judge certified the negligence and Charter claims.

Ontario appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court unanimously allowed the appeal regarding the Charter claims, finding no positive obligation on the state to provide social assistance.

A majority of the court also allowed the appeal regarding the negligence claims, holding that the administration of the benefits program is a core policy decision protected by Crown immunity.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.