Michael Swinwood

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The respondents brought an interim motion seeking Charter damages and a declaration of invalidity regarding COVID-19 public health regulations that restricted their restaurant operations.

The court dismissed the motion on threshold jurisdictional grounds, finding that the respondents failed to commence an originating process claiming such relief and that their Notice of Motion was procedurally defective.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to grant final Charter damages on an interlocutory motion.

The moving parties, who are Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claimants under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, brought a motion requesting that the case management judge recuse himself from hearing their Request for Directions.

The moving parties alleged actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias against St. Anne's IAP claimants, the lead moving party personally, and her former counsel.

The court reviewed the history of the proceedings, including numerous prior orders compelling document production from the respondent, and found no evidence of conscious or unconscious bias.

The court concluded that a reasonable and informed person would not apprehend bias, and dismissed the recusal motion with costs.

The defendants sought to qualify Dr. Sidney Harring as an expert on the existence and territory of the Amikwa Nation to support their Section 35(1) aboriginal rights claim.

The Crown opposed.

The court applied the two-stage test for expert evidence admissibility from White Burgess and R. v. Abbey (Abbey #2).

The court found Dr. Harring's evidence failed the threshold requirement for proper qualification due to lack of impartiality, independence, and bias, stemming from his reliance on secondary sources, unverified information from an interested party (Stacey McQuabbie), and contradictions with source documents.

The court also found the evidence would be excluded at the gatekeeper stage due to unreliability.

Consequently, Dr. Harring was not qualified as an expert.

The moving parties, former residents of St. Anne's Indian Residential School, appealed an order appointing an Independent Special Advisor (ISA) to review Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claims and sought an interim preservation order for documents.

They argued the ISA appointment undercut ongoing proceedings and was made by a biased judge.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no serious issue on appeal due to the probable interlocutory nature of the order, no irreparable harm to the moving parties, and the balance of convenience not favoring a stay.

The preservation order was also denied due to ongoing related proceedings and Canada's undertaking to preserve documents.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a Request for Directions to appoint an Independent Special Advisor to review certain Independent Assessment Process claims by former students of St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

The review was prompted by concerns that some claims were resolved before additional document disclosure was made available.

The court agreed that an independent review was necessary but modified Canada's proposed process to ensure claimants' interests were represented by an amicus and to remove arbitrary restrictions on the review.

The respondents brought a motion in writing on consent to disburse surplus proceeds from a mortgage sale.

The applicant bank had failed to comply with a previous order requiring the proceeds to be paid into court, instead holding them in its counsel's trust account.

To avoid further delay and expense, the court applied the Rules of Civil Procedure liberally, varied the previous order to reflect the funds being held in trust, and ordered the disbursement of the funds to the parties and their counsel as agreed.

The appellants, claimants who suffered abuse at St. Anne's Indian Residential School in Ontario, filed a Request for Directions (RFD) regarding the respondent's disclosure obligations under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

The Eastern Administrative Judge (the Ontario Supervising Judge) recused himself and directed that the RFD be heard by the British Columbia Supervising Judge, relying on the Court Administration Protocol (CAP).

The appellants appealed, arguing the RFD must be heard in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the CAP contains mandatory language requiring RFDs involving relief for a particular class to be directed to the supervising court with jurisdiction over that class.

As the appellants are members of the Ontario class, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction.

The matter was remitted to the Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to assign a different judge.

The moving parties, survivors of the St. Anne's Indian Residential School, appealed an order directing their Request for Directions to be heard by a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court rather than the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

They brought a motion for a stay of the transfer order pending appeal and to expedite the appeal.

The Court of Appeal determined the transfer order was final for the purposes of appeal, applied the RJR-MacDonald test rather than the strong cause approach, and granted the stay, finding a serious question of interpretation regarding the Court Administration Protocol, potential for irreparable harm from inconsistent results, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The accused, Gaston Nicholas, was found guilty of two counts of arson.

At sentencing, the Crown sought a 12-month reformatory sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation, citing the accused's advanced age, poor physical and mental health (including vascular dementia and depression), and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a causal link between the accused's mental health and the offences, and concluded that incarceration would have a severe negative effect on him due to his vulnerabilities and the pandemic conditions in correctional institutions.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation and a 10-year weapons prohibition, declining a DNA order.

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada, successfully moved to strike the plaintiffs' action as res judicata and an abuse of process.

In this costs endorsement, the plaintiffs argued for an exemption from costs as public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding the action was primarily intended to prevent regulatory charges from being heard, was substantially similar to previous actions, and therefore constituted an abuse of process not in the public interest.

The court applied the five factors from *St. James Preservation Society* and the criteria from *Incredible Electronics Inc.* to determine that the plaintiffs did not qualify as public interest litigants.

Costs were awarded to Ontario and Canada.

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada, moved to strike the plaintiffs' action as an abuse of process and res judicata.

The court found the action was substantially similar to two prior dismissed proceedings and was primarily intended to delay regulatory hunting and fishing prosecutions against the individual plaintiffs.

The court determined that constitutional issues related to the prosecutions should be raised in the Ontario Court of Justice, and other land claims could be pursued in a separate, ongoing action (17-71837).

The motion to strike was granted.

Gaston Nicholas was charged with two counts of arson and admitted to setting the fires.

The issue was whether he was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The defence argued that vascular dementia, paranoia, or delusions rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were wrong.

The Crown contended that despite some dementia, his actions and words demonstrated appreciation and knowledge of wrongfulness.

The court found that Nicholas suffered from early-stage dementia, which qualified as a mental disorder, but it did not render him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong.

Consequently, the NCR defence was not established, and Nicholas was found criminally responsible and guilty of arson.

The appellant appealed his convictions for theft under, mischief, and breach of an undertaking.

At trial, the appellant had admitted the facts alleged by the Crown, which involved taking a portable hunt camp and posting no trespassing signs on Crown land in breach of a probation order.

On appeal, the appellant argued the elements of the offences had not been proven.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the admitted facts conclusively proved the elements of the offences and the appellant could not resile from his admissions.

The appellant sought a stay of a default order requiring payment of spousal support arrears and ongoing support, or incarceration, pending an appeal.

The motion for a stay was brought under the three-part RJR-McDonald test.

The appellant argued that his s. 35 Constitution Act, 1982 rights were infringed by Justice Malcolm's failure to order a Gladue report at the default hearing.

The court found no serious question to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the support recipient would suffer greater harm if the stay were granted.

The motion to stay was denied.

Two Requests for Direction (RFDs) were brought regarding the disclosure of documents from prior civil and criminal proceedings concerning St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

In the first RFD, an IAP claimant alleged Canada breached its disclosure obligations by withholding discovery transcripts.

The court dismissed this RFD, finding the transcripts were protected by settlement privilege and the deemed undertaking rule.

In the second RFD, former students and an association sought extraordinary relief, including investigations into the conduct of counsel and the reopening of claims.

The court dismissed the second RFD, holding that the requestors lacked standing and that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to grant the requested relief, as complaints about lawyer conduct fall outside the court's administrative role.

The City of Ottawa sought costs of a motion brought by the appellants to set aside an order refusing leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The appellants argued they should be excused from paying costs as public interest litigants.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the motion to set aside was totally without merit and effectively sought to reargue the leave motion, which did not constitute public interest litigation.

Costs were awarded to the City of Ottawa fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, an Indigenous person, sought an urgent interim and interlocutory injunction to restrain the broadcast and display of the Cleveland Indians' team name and 'Chief Wahoo' logo during the American League Championship Series in Toronto, pending human rights complaints.

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the name and logo constituted discrimination in the provision of a service.

However, the court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, noting the delay in bringing the application, and found the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the material prejudice of last-minute broadcast and uniform changes.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a development on lands with significance to indigenous persons, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court declined to award costs against the appellants, finding they met the criteria for public interest litigants as they raised issues of public importance regarding indigenous religious sites and had no pecuniary interest in the outcome.

Additionally, the court awarded costs to the appellants' counsel personally against one of the respondents for an abandoned claim for personal costs under Rule 57.07(1).

The appellants sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decisions that dismissed their appeals against a City of Ottawa official plan amendment and zoning by-law facilitating the redevelopment of Chaudiere and Albert Islands.

The appellants argued the OMB erred in quashing their Notice of Constitutional Question and in finding that the City and developer adequately consulted with the Algonquin First Nation.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, holding that the OMB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant declarations of Aboriginal title and that the OMB's findings regarding the adequacy of the consultation process were reasonable and did not raise a question of law.