Michele A. Wright

The applicant, the lowest bidder on a municipal construction contract, sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to award the contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant brought the application before the Superior Court of Justice without seeking leave under section 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court declined jurisdiction, holding that applications for judicial review must be brought before the Divisional Court in accordance with the Act and the Consolidated Practice Direction.

The application was dismissed for being brought in the wrong forum.

The appellant appealed a decision finding it in breach of its commercial lease for leaving the building vacant for almost two years and denying it relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the lease or her discretionary decision to deny relief from forfeiture due to a pattern of non-compliance.

The appellants, who own taxicab licences in Toronto, sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto for economic losses allegedly caused by the City's failure to enforce its by-laws against Uber and other private transportation companies.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the City did not owe the appellants a private law duty of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the City's regulatory role and its interactions with the appellants did not create a relationship of proximity, and that policy reasons regarding indeterminate liability negated any prima facie duty of care.

The appellant, a general contractor, appealed the dismissal of its application for a declaration that the City of Toronto pay a construction holdback of $174,381.14.

The parties had previously entered into a global settlement of five lawsuits for $1,287,500, signing a release for all outstanding claims.

The appellant argued the holdback funds were impressed with a trust under the Construction Lien Act and separate from the settlement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the unambiguous terms of the settlement and release covered all claims, including the holdbacks, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs, taxicab plate owners, brought a proposed $1.7 billion class action against the City of Toronto, alleging negligence in the enforcement of its taxicab bylaws against Uber and in the enactment of a new bylaw permitting private transportation companies.

The plaintiffs moved for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the City's enactment of the bylaw was a legislative function immune from private damage suits, and its enforcement of the bylaws was a public duty that did not create a private law duty of care to the taxicab plate owners for pure economic losses.

The applicant contractor sought judicial review of two decisions by the City of Toronto: a finding by the Fair Wage Office that it breached the Fair Wage Policy, and a subsequent City Council decision disqualifying it from City contracts for two years.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed both decisions, finding that the applicant was denied procedural fairness.

Specifically, the applicant was not provided with notice, disclosure, or the right to be heard before the Fair Wage Office made its breach determination.

The court declined to award damages, noting it lacked jurisdiction to do so on judicial review.

The applicant contractor sought an interim injunction staying the City of Toronto Chief Purchasing Official's decision to temporarily suspend it from bidding on city contracts.

The suspension was based on performance issues that occurred before the new Supplier Code of Conduct took effect.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding the applicant established a strong prima facie case that the Chief Purchasing Official lacked authority to suspend for conduct predating the Code, and that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if unable to bid on imminent solicitations.

The municipality sought an injunction requiring the respondents to obtain a licence as either a taxicab broker or a limousine service company under Chapter 545 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The application alleged that the respondents, through their smartphone platform, accepted requests for transportation services and therefore carried on a regulated business.

The court interpreted the by‑law definitions of “taxicab”, “limousine service company”, and the requirement to “accept calls”, concluding that the automated software platform merely relayed digital requests between passengers and drivers.

Because acceptance occurred only when an individual driver chose to accept a trip request, the respondents themselves did not accept calls or requests within the meaning of the by‑law.

Accordingly, the respondents were not operating as a taxicab broker or limousine service company requiring a municipal licence.

On a motion for a sealing order in the context of a municipal enforcement application concerning ride-sharing services, the moving parties sought to keep an insurance policy confidential under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying the Sierra Club test, the court held the evidence did not establish a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest capable of being expressed as a public interest in confidentiality.

The absence of evidence from the insurer and the nature of the document as an insurance policy undermined the claim of confidentiality and competitive harm.

The court further indicated that, even if the first branch had been met, the salutary effects would not outweigh the deleterious effects given the open court principle and the public interest nature of the underlying proceeding.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the police.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant died.

The applicant's counsel subsequently withdrew, and the applicant's mother failed to attend a scheduled case management conference call to address whether the estate intended to proceed with the application.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found discrimination in only two of five alleged instances involving Toronto police officers, awarding $13,000 in compensation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by not conducting the hearing in French and erred in finding insufficient evidence of racial profiling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, noting the applicant never requested a French hearing and the Tribunal's factual findings on racial profiling and compensation were entitled to deference.

The applicant alleged discrimination by a police officer who allegedly used offensive language and acted aggressively during a dispute over a towed vehicle.

The respondents requested a deferral pending a judicial review in an unrelated case, which the Tribunal denied.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because there was no evidence linking the officer's conduct to the applicant's race, colour, ethnic origin, or disability.

The respondent police board brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending a judicial review in a separate matter, dismiss certain allegations for delay, and bifurcate the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding it inappropriate given the imminent hearing date and the fact that the parties were not involved in the judicial review.

The delay issue was deferred to the hearing, as the applicant agreed not to lead evidence on the older incidents.

The request to bifurcate the hearing to separate liability from public interest remedies was granted on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by police officers who apprehended him under the Mental Health Act.

The application was previously dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Request to Dismiss.

The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing that he was under house arrest and lacked access to a computer or phone to respond.

During the teleconference hearing, the applicant made inappropriate comments and alleged bias against the adjudicator.

The Tribunal dismissed the bias allegation and denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was capable of communicating with the Tribunal in writing or by phone during the relevant period but failed to request an extension.

The applicant filed an application alleging racial profiling and a privacy breach by police officers during a traffic stop.

The respondents requested an order requiring the Ministry of Transportation to confirm the identity of the registered owner of the vehicle the applicant was driving.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to first seek the consent of the individual identified by the applicant as the owner, and permitted them to renew their request for an order if consent could not be obtained.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant had failed to file documents or attend a hearing due to illness and not receiving notice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing the reconsideration request was incurred in good faith due to his recovery from illness and lack of access to mail and email, and that the respondents suffered no substantial prejudice.

The reconsideration request was granted.

The applicant requested that his personal information, specifically his email and home addresses, be redacted from the publicly available copies of a previous interim decision.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal, applying Rule 3.11 of its Rules of Procedure, found it appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the sensitive information and ordered the redaction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued he did not receive notice of the hearing due to severe mental health issues and because notice was improperly sent to his mother, who was not his legal representative.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive notice through no fault of his own.

However, because the reconsideration request was filed more than 30 days after the dismissal decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file an affidavit and medical evidence to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant alleged racial profiling and harassment by police officers on three occasions.

The respondent requested to dismiss the October 2011 incident for delay and the January 2012 incident for lack of proof.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the October 2011 incident formed part of a series of incidents within the limitation period, and that it was premature to dismiss the January 2012 incident before the hearing and document production process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on race and colour.

The proposed respondent consented to being added, confirming it is responsible for security services at the relevant location and employs the security guards involved in the incident.

The Tribunal granted the request, added the respondent, and set a timeline for pleadings.