Michael John Sims

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal of an application judge's decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the modified version of its GotSkill? game was not a game of mixed chance and skill under the Criminal Code.

The appellant also sought injunctive orders preventing enforcement of a bulletin issued by the respondent requiring liquor licensees to cease operating the game.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and the appellant would suffer irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the public interest in enforcing gambling and alcohol regulations designed to protect minors and vulnerable individuals.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario's determination that the modified version of GotSkill, an electronic terminal game, remains a game of mixed chance and skill under section 197(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant had modified the game following the 2019 Court of Appeal decision in Play for Fun Studios Inc. v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario), which found the original version to be a game of mixed chance and skill.

The court upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that despite modifications allowing players to view the next five potential wins, the game continues to involve a systematic resort to chance by inducing players to wager money in hopes of uncovering valuable prizes in future rounds.

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 appellant, a lawyer, sought declarations and mandamus to compel the production of aggregated civil trial data from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) for research purposes, after his initial requests were denied by MAG and the Chief Justice of the Superior Court.

The application judge denied the requests, finding that declaratory relief would serve no practical purpose and that the open court principle did not extend to requiring the aggregation of bulk data.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision to deny the declarations on the basis that they would serve no practical purpose.

The court emphasized that control over judicial information rests with the judiciary, not MAG, rendering declarations against MAG ineffective.

The Attorney General of Canada was initially named as a respondent but the application against it was abandoned.

The appellant, Neighbour’s Drug Mart Ltd., appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of its judicial review application.

The original decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs terminated Neighbour’s Health Network System Agreement, revoked its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and suspended its entitlement to payment due to false or unsubstantiated claims.

Neighbour’s argued the Divisional Court erred by misapprehending the record, imposing an unsupported sanction, and creating absolute liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the Divisional Court's application of the reasonableness standard or its conclusions regarding the owner's responsibility and the regulatory scheme's honour system.

The court also rejected the argument that the Executive Officer's consent to a change of control precluded subsequent termination, emphasizing the new owner's assumption of all liabilities.

The applicant municipality sought declarations and advisory opinions from the Superior Court of Justice regarding a perceived conflict between its statutory duty to maintain highways under the Municipal Act, 2001, and its obligations to protect endangered species and their habitats under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The municipality faced charges under the ESA for road maintenance activities that allegedly harmed the mottled Duskywing butterfly and its habitat, arguing it was impossible to comply with both statutes simultaneously.

The court dismissed the application, finding the issues were not ripe for declaratory relief because the municipality had not availed itself of the permit process provided under the ESA, nor had it fully tested its defenses in the ongoing provincial prosecution.

The appellants appealed their convictions for offences under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Fishing Licensing Regulation, specifically concerning the interpretation of an exemption related to buying baitfish for commercial purposes without a license.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the exemption in s. 32(1) of the Regulation applies only to the general prohibition in s. 51(1) of the FWCA, not to the specific commercial baitfish prohibition in s. 31.3(1)(b) of the Regulation.

The court also rejected a due diligence/mistake of fact defence, reiterating that misinterpretation of law is not a valid defence.

The applicant sought declarations and an order of mandamus to compel the Attorney General of Ontario to provide statistical data and court file numbers related to civil trials.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the open court principle does not extend to requiring the aggregation and generation of such bulk data, and that the Attorney General lacked the authority to provide the information, as it rests exclusively with the court.

The court also denied the applicant's request to transfer the application to the Divisional Court for judicial review, citing procedural deficiencies and lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants sought to consolidate two leave to appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal, arising from regulatory action by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector concerning sled dogs.

The first leave application related to the legality of dog removal and compliance orders, while the second concerned a statement of account for dog care costs.

The court applied Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding a common factual origin but distinct legal questions.

The motion judge dismissed the consolidation request, concluding that the balance of convenience did not favour consolidation, as there was little efficiency to be gained in written leave applications and the potential prejudice to the respondent outweighed marginal benefits.

The Superintendent of Private Career Colleges sought a restraining order against Island Air Flight School & Charters Inc. for allegedly operating as an unregistered private career college and offering vocational programs in contravention of the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The court found that Island Air did violate the Act by providing vocational training until August 2019, but not thereafter.

The court declined to issue a restraining order, exercising its discretion based on the lack of reasonable grounds to believe future violations would occur, the absence of public safety or significant consumer protection concerns, and the availability of adequate alternative remedies under the Act.

The City of Toronto sought a declaration that Cloverdale Mall Inc. owned and was responsible for the maintenance of a bridge over the East Mall, or alternatively, if the City owned it, that it had the right to demolish it.

The bridge was built by Cloverdale's predecessor after land expropriation for Highway 427, with the province reimbursing construction costs.

The Minutes of Settlement from 1972 were silent on bridge ownership and maintenance.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the court found that the parties intended Cloverdale to own and maintain the bridge, as it served Cloverdale's private interests and the City's obligations were extinguished upon payment for construction.

The court also rejected the argument that the bridge was a fixture to City land, as its purpose was to enhance Cloverdale's property, not the City's.

The application was granted in favour of the City, with costs fixed against Cloverdale.