Marcus Hamilton Campbell

The plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class action against the Province of Ontario following an inadvertent data disclosure.

An employee of the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services mistakenly emailed a spreadsheet containing the names, email addresses, and identification numbers of approximately 45,000 Ontario Disability Support Program recipients to 103 clients.

The plaintiff alleged intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, breach of confidence, and publication of private facts, claiming the disclosure caused distress.

The court found that no actual harm had materialized in the six years since the incident and that the plaintiff had publicly disclosed his own status.

Consequently, the court dismissed the motion for certification.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1 review, at the request of the Ontario Provincial Police, to consider dismissing the plaintiff's action against the Toronto Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police.

The plaintiff's claim alleged police inaction in investigating harassment.

The court found grounds to believe the action was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process against these two defendants due to a lack of factual involvement and issues of vicarious liability under the Police Services Act.

The plaintiff was given 15 days to file a written submission in response, and the proceeding was stayed pending the resolution of the Rule 2.1 process.

The applicant, charged with assault against his former partner, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings until the state funded his defence.

While the court found that the applicant had exhausted the Legal Aid process and lacked the financial means to retain counsel, it concluded that his right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised if he proceeded self-represented.

The court noted the case was not complex, involved limited disclosure, and the applicant demonstrated the cognitive ability to represent himself with the assistance of the trial judge.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a decision denying it a certificate of eligibility for a digital media tax credit.

The delay was 43 months.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for most of the delay, having initially pursued an appeal through the tax system in good faith and later experiencing confusion due to changing court procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finding minimal prejudice to the respondents, the court granted the extension of time.

The Attorney General applied for civil forfeiture of $16,020 seized during a police raid of an apartment.

The respondent claimed that $15,000 of the seized funds was a cash loan from her sister to purchase a car, while the remaining $1,020 belonged to the target of the raid.

The court found that the $1,020 was proceeds of unlawful activity and ordered it forfeited.

However, the court accepted the respondent's evidence regarding the $15,000 loan, finding it was not connected to unlawful activity, and ordered those funds returned to her.