Mariam Gagi

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against Ontario for historical sexual assault by a participant in the Witness Protection Program, Ontario sought costs of over $516,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded due to the nature of the claim and the Victims' Bill of Rights.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that victims of sexual assault should be presumptively shielded from costs when unsuccessful, but considered the plaintiff's good faith and the need for proportionality.

Costs were fixed at $275,000.

The plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted while in the Witness Protection Program and sought damages against Ontario on theories of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the sexual assault occurred, but held that the protection team’s private duty of care was limited to protection from the identified outside threat and that no breach of the applicable standard of care was proven, particularly in the absence of expert evidence on the Witness Protection Program standard of care in 1987.

The court further held that legal causation and foreseeability were not established, and rejected the fiduciary and contract claims.

In an alternative assessment, the court would have awarded damages for psychological harm from the assault, but not for COPD, income loss, or housekeeping claims.

The claimant filed a compensation claim against the Ministry of Transportation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to organize the proceeding.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a nine-day hybrid hearing to commence in March 2027.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner decisions ordering the Cabinet Office to obtain and review entries from the Premier's personal cellphone call logs that related to government business.

The IPC had found that these specific call logs were under the control of the Cabinet Office pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's application of the National Defence control test was reasonable and that the decisions appropriately balanced the public's right of access to government information with the protection of personal privacy.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision (2023 ONSC 1073) which dismissed an application and an action against the Attorney General of Canada, and struck out a statement of claim against the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) with leave to amend.

The plaintiff and Attorney General of Canada settled costs.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought partial indemnity costs of $2,127.50 from the self-represented plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to provide responding costs submissions despite multiple opportunities.

The court found the AGO was largely successful and justified in bringing the motion to strike.

The court awarded the AGO $2,000.00 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiff to the Minister of Finance for Ontario within 30 days.

The plaintiff, Donald Jameson Whitehead, initiated an action and an application against the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) and the Attorney General of Canada (AGC), seeking substantial damages for alleged infringements of rights during his detention and treatment.

The AGO moved to dismiss the action and application, and the AGC moved to consolidate and strike the pleadings.

The court dismissed the application as an abuse of process due to duplication.

It dismissed the action against the AGC, finding no reasonable cause of action.

For the AGO, the court struck out claims related to municipal police, correctional facilities, tribunals, and healthcare institutions without leave to amend, as the AGO is not vicariously liable for these entities.

Claims against Crown prosecutors were also struck for insufficient pleading of malicious prosecution or wrongful non-disclosure, but with leave to amend to provide necessary particulars.

The entire Statement of Claim was struck with leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim within 45 days, specifically for claims against Crown prosecutors.

Ontario brought a motion to adjourn the Stage Three trial of a complex treaty rights claim sine die, pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the appeal of Stage One and Stage Two.

The plaintiffs, interveners, and Canada opposed the motion.

The court applied the test for an adjournment, balancing the interests of the parties and the administration of justice.

The court found that the risk of proceeding was manageable, while the prejudice to the plaintiffs and the administration of justice caused by further delay would be significant.

The motion to adjourn was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal remitted the issue of the Huron plaintiffs' Stage One trial costs to the Superior Court for reconsideration, questioning the substantial difference in hours claimed compared to the Superior plaintiffs.

The court found the Huron plaintiffs' costs to be fair and reasonable, noting the added complexity of representing 21 First Nations, the extensive evidence led on the Anishinaabe perspective, the incorporation of Anishinaabe Ceremony and protocol, and the necessary creation of the Robinson Huron Trust to manage the litigation.

The court concluded that the costs were proportionate and within the reasonable expectations of the parties given the historical significance and complexity of the treaty claims.

Following a case management teleconference, the court issued directions regarding two related applications brought by the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association and the City of Toronto against Ontario concerning the demolition of heritage buildings.

Toronto sought an order requiring Ontario to produce a 'record of decision' prior to the hearing, arguing that the demolition involved a statutory power of decision.

The case management judge deferred this issue to the panel hearing the applications, noting that the panel could draw appropriate inferences or order further disclosure if necessary.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to stop the demolition of four industrial buildings with heritage designations under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court found that the respondents likely began demolition by mistake, failing to comply with the Heritage Act and a subdivision agreement with the City of Toronto.

The court granted an interim order of prohibition under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to prevent the destruction of the buildings pending the final determination of the application by a panel of the Divisional Court.