65 total
Class action certification denied as government's refusal to fund special needs agreements does not constitute negligence.
The plaintiffs, a special needs child and his mother, brought a proposed class action against Ontario for negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging the government unlawfully terminated special needs agreements under section 30 of the Child and Family Services Act.
The Court of Appeal held that the statement of claim failed to disclose a cause of action.
The court found that the statutory discretion to enter into voluntary agreements did not create a private law duty of care, and the plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts demonstrating intentional wrongdoing by a public officer required for misfeasance in public office.
The appeal was allowed and the certification order was set aside.
Ontario owes no private law duty of care to individuals to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus.
The plaintiffs sued Ontario in negligence, alleging the province failed to prevent the outbreak of West Nile Virus in 2002, resulting in the deceased contracting the virus and dying from complications.
Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The motions judge and Divisional Court dismissed the motion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck the claim, holding that the Health Protection and Promotion Act imposes a general public law duty to protect health, but does not create a private law duty of care owed to specific individuals to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.
Appeal dismissed; government's motion to strike negligence claim regarding West Nile Virus prevention denied.
The defendant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.
The plaintiffs sued the provincial government in negligence after the deceased contracted West Nile Virus, alleging the government failed to reasonably implement its prevention plan.
The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail, as the relevant public health legislation conferred sufficient powers on the government to potentially ground a private law duty of care at the operational level.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal allowed and class action certified against government for discontinuing special needs agreements for disabled children.
The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government.
The action alleged negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office arising from the government's decision to discontinue entering into Special Needs Agreements for profoundly disabled children.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding it was plain and obvious the negligence claim could not succeed.
The court held that the statement of claim disclosed arguable causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.
Leave to appeal granted to determine if a public authority owes a duty of care to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus.
The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim.
The plaintiffs alleged the provincial government was negligent in failing to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions regarding the threshold test for establishing a duty of care for public authorities and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.
A stay of the order was also granted pending the appeal.