Matthew Cornett

The self-represented applicant, a resident of a homeless shelter, brought an application against the shelter and its manager alleging bullying, negligence, and violations of his Charter rights under sections 2, 12, and 15.

Following a summary trial, the court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide any evidentiary or legal basis to support his allegations of cruel and unusual treatment, discrimination, or negligence.

The respondents' evidence demonstrated that they acted reasonably and that the applicant was aggressive and refused to follow shelter rules.

The moving parties sought to set aside a registrar's dismissal order made for delay under the Rules of Civil Procedure in an action alleging police misconduct, bad faith investigation, and Charter breaches arising from events tied to a prior criminal prosecution.

Applying the established four-factor framework, the court held the moving parties failed to adequately explain the litigation delay, failed to show inadvertence in missing the deadline, and failed to bring the motion promptly.

The court further found a presumption of prejudice arising from the passage of time, held that presumption was not rebutted, and found actual prejudice to the police defendants due to unavailable witnesses and faded memories.

In a contextual assessment, the court also accepted that there was no valid cause of action against the provincial Crown on the pleaded facts.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was dismissed, with no costs sought.

The municipality sought an injunction requiring the respondents to obtain a licence as either a taxicab broker or a limousine service company under Chapter 545 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The application alleged that the respondents, through their smartphone platform, accepted requests for transportation services and therefore carried on a regulated business.

The court interpreted the by‑law definitions of “taxicab”, “limousine service company”, and the requirement to “accept calls”, concluding that the automated software platform merely relayed digital requests between passengers and drivers.

Because acceptance occurred only when an individual driver chose to accept a trip request, the respondents themselves did not accept calls or requests within the meaning of the by‑law.

Accordingly, the respondents were not operating as a taxicab broker or limousine service company requiring a municipal licence.

On a motion for a sealing order in the context of a municipal enforcement application concerning ride-sharing services, the moving parties sought to keep an insurance policy confidential under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying the Sierra Club test, the court held the evidence did not establish a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest capable of being expressed as a public interest in confidentiality.

The absence of evidence from the insurer and the nature of the document as an insurance policy undermined the claim of confidentiality and competitive harm.

The court further indicated that, even if the first branch had been met, the salutary effects would not outweigh the deleterious effects given the open court principle and the public interest nature of the underlying proceeding.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which declined to hear her appeal regarding the City of Toronto's failure to provide her with an employment placement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 26(2)1 of the Ontario Works Act, 1997, decisions respecting employment assistance that do not affect eligibility for or the amount of income assistance are not appealable to the Tribunal.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that a potential future reduction in need for income assistance made the decision appealable.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that directed the application to proceed against the police services board as the sole respondent.

The applicant had failed to comply with a previous direction to serve a Request to Add a Party on the individual police officers he sought to add as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the test for reconsideration, as there were no compelling circumstances explaining his failure to comply with the Tribunal's clear direction.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that allowed the applicant to add 32 new allegations of racial profiling to his human rights application.

The respondent argued that some of the new allegations were the subject of civil claims.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the respondent was improperly using the reconsideration process to appeal the interim decision, and directed the respondent to file a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the new allegations instead.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for a further extension of time to file its amended Response.