Myriam Marie Seers

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent transit authority's decision to enter into a contract for diesel multiple units for an air-rail link.

The applicant argued the respondent exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct an electrification feasibility study and improperly accepting ministerial direction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to enter a commercial contract did not constitute a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act as it did not determine any legal rights.

Furthermore, the court held that the respondent acted within its statutory authority under its governing legislation.

The applicant, a public interest group opposing the use of diesel trains on the air rail link, brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit after completing cross-examinations.

The affidavit sought to explain the applicant's delay in bringing its application for judicial review.

The court applied the four-factor test for granting leave under Rule 39.02(2) and found that the evidence was relevant, responsive to cross-examination, would not cause non-compensable prejudice, and had a reasonably adequate explanation for its late filing.

Leave was granted to file the affidavit, subject to the exclusion of several irrelevant paragraphs.

Costs decision arising from a Rule 21 motion in a proposed class proceeding.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs after largely resisting the defendants’ motion to strike, while the defendants sought costs because the plaintiffs abandoned several claims during the motion, including conspiracy and negligence claims involving the Attorney General of Canada.

The court found that the plaintiffs substantially succeeded on remaining claims but materially altered their pleadings and abandoned significant allegations during the hearing.

Given the divided success and the altered nature of the action, the court concluded that neither side should receive costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' proposed class action claims relating to the importation of vehicles from the United States into Canada.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to force importers to pay for unnecessary modifications and certifications by manipulating Transport Canada's admissibility list.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the Competition Act, Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment claims.

The court struck the claim for unlawful purpose conspiracy without leave to amend, but allowed the unlawful conduct conspiracy claim to proceed.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their claim for intentional interference with economic interests.