Matthew John Chung

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of decisions by two medical clinics and the Ministry of Health regarding patient transfer policies and his dismissal as a patient.

The respondent clinics brought a motion to quash the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as they were not exercising statutory powers, and that the application was premature and an abuse of process given parallel proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicant also brought a motion to add several hospitals as respondents.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding the clinics were private entities not exercising state authority, and dismissed the motion to add respondents on similar jurisdictional grounds and as an abuse of process.

The applicant, an American web-based videoconference provider, sought judicial review of Ontario Health's refusal to verify its platform as a 'Verified Virtual Visit Solution', which prevented Ontario physicians from billing OHIP for services rendered using the platform.

Ontario Health required the applicant to store data in Canada, asserting the platform collected personal health information.

The Divisional Court held that the data residency requirement and the related OHIP payment rule were not ultra vires.

While the court found Ontario Health's conclusion that the applicant collected personal health information to be unreasonable, it ultimately dismissed the application because the applicant failed to meet other mandatory technical and privacy assessment requirements.

An adult daughter fraudulently transferred title of her elderly parents' mortgage-free home into her own name and obtained a $760,000 mortgage from a lender.

When the daughter defaulted, the lender attempted to enforce the mortgage.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment, declaring the transfer and mortgage void as fraudulent instruments under the Land Titles Act, and ordered the daughter to pay $150,000 in punitive damages.

The daughter appealed the punitive damages and costs, while the lender appealed the finding that its mortgage was void.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the punitive damages due to the daughter's egregious conduct and affirming that under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility, the lender's interest must yield to the innocent homeowners.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to compel the examination of a Vice-President at Infrastructure Ontario in the context of an application for judicial review challenging the expropriation of its properties.

The applicant sought to supplement the record with evidence regarding the scope, rationale, and scheme of the expropriations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable evidentiary basis that the proposed witness participated in briefing the decision-maker, nor did the proposed topics fall within the limited exceptions for supplementing a record on judicial review.

The Toronto Revolver Club sought declarations that the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario lacks authority to conduct warrantless inspections of shooting ranges and to impose conditions on shooting range approvals.

The court found that while the first issue presented no live controversy, the CFO has no authority to attach conditions to shooting range approvals under the Firearms Act.

The court applied statutory interpretation principles, finding that the Act and Regulations do not expressly grant such power and that the power is not practically necessary to achieve Parliament's public safety objectives, as the CFO retains broad revocation authority.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Ministry determination that it owed refunds to three students because an instructor lacked the requisite qualifications under the Private Career Colleges Act.

The applicant argued the Ministry failed to consider evidence establishing the instructor's qualifications during an internal review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence was submitted after the internal review decision had already been made, and the Ministry's refusal to reconsider the matter a second time was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness.

The court considered motions for costs personally against George Windsor, who commenced proceedings on behalf of Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. without proper authority.

The action was found to be duplicative, meritless, and a waste of resources.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis against Mr. Windsor personally, disallowed him from charging legal fees to the plaintiffs, and set out the principles for awarding costs in such circumstances.

The applicant, a legal assistant, sought judicial review of a decision denying her application for appointment as a non-lawyer notary public.

The Manager of Legal Appointments denied the application on the basis that the appointment was not necessary for the law firm's regular business, as the supervising lawyer was already a notary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was procedurally fair because the applicant had notice of the criteria.

The court also held that the decision was reasonable, as it aligned with the long-standing practice of limiting appointments to situations of strict necessity rather than mere expansion of services.

The applicant sought an order compelling the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to issue a decision on his discrimination complaint, which had been pending since March 2021.

Before the application was heard, the tribunal released its decision dismissing the complaint due to delay.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the application despite it being moot, alleging irreparable harm from the delay.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding it focused on the specific circumstances of the complaint rather than broader issues of public importance.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision confirming the cancellation of his nomination approval under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program.

The nomination was cancelled because the applicant failed to apply for a work permit within the six-month validity period of his work permit support letter, citing COVID-19 travel restrictions in China and family responsibilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the internal reviewer's decision reasonable and concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness, no veiled credibility finding, and that adequate reasons were provided.

The applicants, an advocacy coalition and an individual, sought judicial review of the Minister of Long-Term Care's decision to grant a conditional undertaking to issue a licence for a new 320-bed long-term care home to Southbridge Care Homes.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable given the operator's poor record during the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged procedural unfairness during public consultations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing as the coalition was an unincorporated association without legal capacity and the individual lacked a genuine interest.

In the alternative, the court held the Minister's decision was reasonable and the consultation process was procedurally fair.

The respondent's counsel advised the court of a potential conflict of interest.

The applicants indicated they had no concerns and were content to proceed as scheduled.

Given the parties' positions, the panel directed that the matter would proceed as scheduled.

The court considered whether to dismiss the application against Ontario under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant, Ramlall Hemchand, alleged that Ontario failed to act on complaints regarding his rental premises and the conduct of his landlords.

The court found the application against Ontario to be frivolous and vexatious, noting that the pleadings did not identify any duty owed or breached by Ontario, nor did they seek any relief against Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered a request by Ontario to dismiss the application against it under rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application alleged that the applicant’s landlords breached his privacy, the lease agreement, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

As against Ontario, the claim was that Ontario failed to act on the applicant’s complaints about the rental premises and the conduct of the landlords.

The court found that the pleading did not identify a viable claim or duty owed by Ontario and made procedural orders, including a stay of the action and directions for further submissions.

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 plaintiffs, Daniel Knox, Harrison Knox, and Sherry Cole, sued His Majesty The King in Right of Ontario and several police constables for unlawful arrest and battery.

The claims stemmed from an incident where Daniel Knox and Sherry Cole arrived at a scene where Harrison Knox had already been arrested.

The court found that Daniel Knox assaulted an officer, justifying his arrest and the use of a taser.

Sherry Cole also assaulted an officer, justifying her arrest and the force used.

Harrison Knox's initial arrest was found lawful based on reasonable grounds.

The court dismissed all claims, concluding that the arrests were lawful and the force used by police was justified.

The appellant appealed orders striking out two applications, arguing they failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, were improperly commenced, and that the motion judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions on all grounds.

The plaintiff, Erwin Banfi, brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees against multiple municipal and provincial defendants concerning alleged increased flood risk and reduced property values due to overdevelopment in Oakville.

The action, initially premised on property diminution, shifted focus due to difficulties in proving causation and quantifying individual damages.

The proposed settlement involved a $500,000 payment by defendants to the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation for a flood education and protection program for class members, and class counsel fees of $495,000.

The court approved the cy-près settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the litigation's challenges and the material benefit provided to class members.

Class counsel fees and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action and striking his amended statement of claim.

The motion judge had concluded that the action was outside the Superior Court's jurisdiction and that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the Divisional Court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the issues raised, as the action fundamentally concerned the enforcement of statutory powers subject to judicial review, not a matter for the Superior Court.

The plaintiffs, Yves Chevalier and George Basmadji, brought an action against the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, alleging unconstitutional and criminal conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of care, and abuse of public trust, seeking substantial damages.

The defendant requisitioned a Rule 2.1 order to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found Basmadji was subject to a vexatious litigant order and had not obtained leave to commence the action.

Chevalier's claim was found to be frivolous and an abuse of process, particularly given a prior stay.

The court dismissed both plaintiffs' claims under Rule 2.1.03(1) and Rule 2.1.01, respectively, with no order as to costs.