Meagan Williams

The Attorney General brought a motion to quash summonses issued by defendant Michael G. Engel to two Crown attorneys, John McMahon and Paul Amenta, for examination under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Engel sought to examine them as part of his response to the Attorney General's summary judgment motion to dismiss Engel's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity, which alleged that Crown attorneys failed to comply with disclosure obligations in the underlying wrongful conviction action.

The court found that Engel demonstrated a reasonable evidentiary basis that the Crown attorneys could provide relevant evidence on several specific disclosure topics and that the proposed examinations would not constitute an abuse of process.

The motion to quash was dismissed, allowing examinations on four of the five identified topics.

The applicant requested an adjournment of scheduled summary and preliminary hearings, citing a recently scheduled medical appointment.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the absence of medical documentation indicating an inability to proceed and the long-standing notice of the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances, as the applicant could have avoided the scheduling conflict and the hearing was scheduled to conclude before the medical appointment.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, age, and disability against a college and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities after her bursary application for disability-related services was denied.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the Ministry had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding no evidence linking the Ministry's decision to a prohibited ground of discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellants, homeowners, appealed a trial judgment that awarded the respondent masonry subcontractor $14,714.12 on a construction lien claim and dismissed the appellants' $200,000 cross-claim for slander of title.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the contract, finding the lien was preserved in time, and awarding $30,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the contract terms and the date of last work.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting the appellants had refused to transfer the matter to Small Claims Court and had unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The appellants brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, specifically an aerial photograph they claimed showed the respondent's equipment had been removed from the construction site earlier than the respondent testified.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been discovered before trial with due diligence, was not decisive to the core issue of when the work was completed, and lacked credibility without expert interpretation.

The applicants, trustees of multi-employer pension plans, sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of confidential actuarial valuation reports to a representative of a rival union.

The applicants argued that disclosure would cause harm during the construction industry's 'raiding season'.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the commissioner's order, finding that the commissioner applied an overly burdensome standard of proof and an overly stringent test for causation of harm under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court held that the applicants only needed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm, which was met given the highly competitive context of union raiding.

The applicant, a tobacco manufacturer, challenged the Minister of Finance's demand for security under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The applicant argued that because its products were sold exclusively to on-reserve First Nations retailers and for export, they were not subject to Ontario tax, and thus no security could be demanded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the plain language of s. 12(2)(f.1) of the Act requires the Minister to demand security for unmarked fine cut tobacco as if it were destined for taxable sale, to protect against the risk of product diversion.

The court also found the Minister's decision to reduce the required security amount was reasonable.

Following the successful dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action against 78 defendants, six groups of defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered the complexity of the claims, the plaintiff's mental health, and principles of proportionality and fairness.

The court reduced several of the costs claimed to ensure comparability and fairness, ultimately awarding a total of $71,000 in costs across the successful defendants.

The applicant sought an order requiring consumer reporting agencies to remove debts older than two years from his credit report, arguing that once the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 expires, such debts cannot be legally enforced and should not be reported.

The court considered whether the limitation period governing civil proceedings should apply to the time frame for reporting debts under the Consumer Reporting Act.

The court held that the statutes serve distinct purposes: the Limitations Act governs the enforcement of legal claims, while the Consumer Reporting Act regulates consumer credit reporting.

Because neither statute incorporates the other, the two‑year limitation period does not restrict the reporting of debts under the Consumer Reporting Act.

The applicant’s Charter argument also failed because the actions complained of involved private entities rather than governmental action.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against 78 defendants, including various Ontario government ministries, Crown attorneys, justices of the peace, and agencies, alleging malicious prosecution, Charter breaches, and other torts arising from past criminal convictions and child protection proceedings.

The Ontario Defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the Ontario Defendants without leave to amend, finding that the claims were statute-barred, constituted an abuse of process by attempting to re-litigate unappealed court orders, and failed to plead material facts disclosing a reasonable cause of action.

The moving lawyer defendants sought to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s expansive civil action alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, Charter breaches, defamation, and other torts arising from criminal proceedings and child protection litigation.

The court held that the statement of claim lacked material facts linking the lawyer defendants to the alleged misconduct and improperly attempted to relitigate criminal convictions and child protection determinations.

Many claims were also barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the pleadings vague, speculative, and abusive, failing to establish recognized causes of action or the elements of torts such as conspiracy, malicious prosecution, defamation, or abuse of public office.

The action against the four lawyer defendants was struck or dismissed without leave to amend.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the Landlord and Tenant Board, claiming his request to have multiple applications heard on separate days due to a disability was denied.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent's initial handling of the request was deficient, the applicant withdrew his applications before the hearing took place, preventing the adjudicator from determining the accommodation request.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant experienced no adverse impact and dismissed the application.

The plaintiffs brought a civil action in negligence against the defendant police officers following the fatal shooting of their family member.

The deceased, who was intoxicated and armed with knives, advanced aggressively toward an officer and refused commands to drop the weapons.

The court found that the officers acted reasonably and within the standard of care expected in such dangerous and rapidly unfolding circumstances.

The action was dismissed, though damages were assessed at $100,000 under the Family Law Act in the event of an appeal.

Following earlier litigation involving the issuance of Notices of Prohibition by the Ministry, the successful party sought costs for multiple court attendances.

The court held that although costs were not specifically addressed at earlier hearings, they were necessary steps in the litigation and the successful party was entitled to recover costs.

The judge expressed concern that the ministry refused to hold its Notices of Prohibition in abeyance to allow an orderly hearing and indicated that substantial indemnity costs might otherwise have been appropriate.

However, due to deficiencies in the bill of costs and excessive hours claimed for research, the court reduced the hours and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Final costs were fixed at $45,076.33 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant supermarket owner sought judicial review of an automatic prohibition issued under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act after employees were convicted of selling tobacco to minors.

The prohibition barred the store from selling tobacco products for nine months based solely on employee convictions, even though the employer had never been charged and had no opportunity to assert the statutory due diligence defence available to owners.

The court found that the Ministry’s notice process, information system, and decision-making framework failed to provide adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity for the employer to present a defence.

Because the administrative system did not record or consider whether the employer had exercised due diligence, the issuance of the prohibition violated procedural fairness and frustrated the statutory scheme.

The notice of prohibition was quashed.

The applicant retailer sought a temporary stay of a six‑month prohibition order issued under the Smoke Free Ontario Act preventing the sale of tobacco products following two convictions for selling tobacco to minors.

The motion was brought pending appeals and an intended judicial review raising issues of procedural fairness, constitutional validity, and Charter rights.

Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test for interlocutory relief, the court held that no serious issue to be tried was established because the prohibition was mandatory once two convictions occurred and involved no discretionary decision subject to review.

The court further found that the alleged financial losses were purely monetary and did not constitute irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the public interest in protecting minors from tobacco access.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) failed to accommodate his disability when it scheduled his four applications for the same hearing day.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the LTB's scheduling decision was protected by adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal found that the preponderance of contemporaneous evidence indicated the scheduling decision was an administrative or management decision, rather than an adjudicative decision made by an LTB Member.

Consequently, the decision was not shielded by adjudicative immunity, and the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to hear the merits of the application.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council regarding his inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to an unexplained 18-month delay in bringing the proceeding.

The court also considered the merits, finding no procedural unfairness in the complaint or investigation process, and rejecting the applicant's claim of ineffective counsel, noting there is no right to effective counsel in civil proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant had requested security footage and reports from the University of Ottawa regarding an alleged attempted theft of his backpack.

The adjudicator upheld the University's decision to withhold portions of the records, finding that the search was reasonable, there was no obligation to provide certified copies, and the withheld records contained personal information of third parties whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Divisional Court found the adjudicator's decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking to vary a prior endorsement denying urgency, to set aside a costs award, and to obtain declarations relating to alleged misconduct by a respondent in a judicial review proceeding concerning an order under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court reviewed the transcript of the earlier motion and found that the prior judge’s determination regarding urgency and the costs award were supported by the record and applicable law.

The applicant failed to establish any basis to vary the earlier endorsement or to set aside the costs award.

The court concluded the judicial review application was not urgent and ordered that the matter be transferred to the Divisional Court pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.