Matthew Chung

Le demandeur a intenté une action en jugement déclaratoire contre le procureur général et le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil, alléguant que le Tribunal des droits de la personne de l'Ontario (TDPO) ne comptait aucun membre capable d'entendre sa cause en français.

Les défendeurs ont présenté une motion en radiation de la déclaration.

La Cour supérieure a accueilli la motion, concluant d'une part qu'elle n'avait pas compétence puisque le litige concernait l'exercice d'une compétence légale relevant de la compétence exclusive de la Cour divisionnaire en matière de révision judiciaire.

D'autre part, la Cour a conclu que la déclaration ne révélait aucune cause d'action raisonnable, car la demande était prématurée et théorique, le demandeur n'ayant pris aucune démarche auprès du TDPO pour faire avancer son dossier ou demander une audience en français.

The plaintiffs brought an action against several defendants, including judges and police, alleging Charter violations.

The court reviewed the plaintiffs' written submissions following a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding the claims frivolous, vexatious, and barred by judicial immunity, the court dismissed the action in its entirety.

Additionally, the court revoked the plaintiff's fee waiver under the Administration of Justice Act to prevent further abuse of court resources.

The defendants requested a review of the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the action by one plaintiff, who was a declared vexatious litigant and had not obtained leave to institute the proceeding.

The court stayed the action by the second plaintiff, noting the claims against judges and court officials appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and directed the registrar to issue a notice for written submissions on why the action should not be dismissed and his fee waiver cancelled.

The applicant brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel for her upcoming trials on charges of impaired driving and multiple domestic assault-related offences.

The Crown conceded the applicant lacked the financial ability to retain counsel, leaving trial fairness as the sole issue.

The court assessed the applicant's education, work history as a business analyst, and self-presentation, concluding she was highly capable of self-representing.

The court also found the charges were not legally or factually complex.

The application for state-funded counsel and the alternative request for the appointment of amicus curiae were dismissed.

The respondent, representing a class of seriously mentally ill inmates and inmates held in prolonged administrative segregation, brought a class action against Ontario for Charter breaches and systemic negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that Ontario's use of administrative segregation violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter, and awarded $30 million in aggregate Charter damages.

Ontario appealed, arguing that the Charter breaches were not established for all seriously mentally ill inmates, that Charter damages were inappropriate due to good governance concerns, and that the negligence claim was barred by statute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings that administrative segregation of seriously mentally ill inmates constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, that Ontario's clear disregard for inmates' rights justified Charter damages, and that the operational implementation of segregation policies grounded a valid systemic negligence claim.

The Crown moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff alleged that the Crown negligently supervised various entities, including the OSC, LSO, and judges.

The court dismissed the claim as a nullity because the plaintiff failed to provide the required 60-day notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Furthermore, the court struck the claim without leave to amend, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action as the Crown is not vicariously liable for the independent entities named.

In a certified class action regarding Ontario's use of administrative segregation, the plaintiff sought to summons an independent expert appointed by Ontario to testify on an upcoming summary judgment motion.

Ontario opposed the summons, arguing it violated procedural rules regarding the timing of examinations.

The court declined to order the examination at this juncture, finding that it was more proportionate to simply order that the expert's Final Report be delivered to class counsel for use on the summary judgment motion once it is provided to Ontario.