Nansy Ghobrial

A case management conference was held to set the timetable for two grouped appeals arising from a decision certifying a class action against the Province of Ontario but declining to certify it against 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeals will be heard by a five-judge panel to consider whether the court should depart from the Ragoonanan principle.

The case management judge set the schedule for responding materials, intervention motions, and factums.

The court, following a request from the respondent, reviewed an application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for potential dismissal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The judge found the application appeared to be frivolous and vexatious and ordered a stay of the application.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed.

The plaintiff, Ontario, obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendants in relation to an alleged kickback scheme and fraud.

The moving defendants sought to vary the injunction to permit the sale of two properties to fund their civil and criminal legal expenses, as well as living and therapy expenses.

The court determined that the injunction was non-proprietary, as Ontario failed to establish a direct link between the misappropriated funds and the specific properties to support a constructive trust.

The court granted the motion, allowing the properties to be sold and the proceeds used for reasonable legal and living expenses, subject to accounting requirements.

The plaintiff, Ontario, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages, provide further particulars of alleged kickback schemes, and add additional defendants in a civil fraud action.

The defendants and proposed added defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments lacked particularity, used vague 'and/or' formulations, and failed to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure.

The court agreed that several proposed paragraphs were deficient as they did not clearly identify which allegations were made against which specific defendants.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted leave to renew its motion with a properly drafted amended pleading.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs' claim sought to set aside an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal and alleged various torts against the named defendants, arising from dealings with the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO).

The court found that RECO and its employees are not agents of the Crown, and the Crown is statutorily immune from liability for their acts or omissions.

Additionally, attempting to appeal or reverse a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision through a civil suit constitutes an abuse of process, as the proper avenue is an appeal to the Divisional Court on questions of law.

The action was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether a 1985 indemnity provided by the Province of Ontario to Great Lakes and Reed covered the costs of complying with a 2011 Director's Order requiring remedial work at an abandoned mercury waste disposal site near Dryden, Ontario.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment in favour of Weyerhaeuser and Resolute, finding both were entitled to indemnification.

The appellate court was divided.

The majority (Brown and Lauwers JJ.A.) held that the 1985 indemnity did cover the costs of complying with the Director's Order, but found that Resolute had no legal interest in the indemnity because Bowater had assigned the full benefit to Weyerhaeuser in 1998.

The majority remitted the issue of Weyerhaeuser's rights as assignee to the trial court.

Justice Laskin dissented, arguing the 1985 indemnity covered only third-party pollution claims, not first-party regulatory compliance costs.

The applicant, facing multiple criminal charges including fraud over $5,000, sought a Rowbotham Order for publicly funded counsel.

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove indigence, having provided inconsistent and dishonest financial information to Legal Aid Ontario and the court.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, thereby failing the second criterion of the Rowbotham test.

The applicant, charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm arising from an incident at a nightclub where the complainant allegedly fell down stairs, sought a Conditional Stay of prosecution on the basis that he required state-funded defence counsel to receive a fair trial.

The applicant had been denied Legal Aid and exhausted all appeals.

The court applied the Rowbotham test, examining whether the accused had exhausted legal aid efforts, lacked personal financial resources, and whether his right to a fair trial would be infringed without counsel.

The court found that the case presented significant complexity involving eyewitness identification and potential self-defence issues, and that the accused's ability to defend himself without counsel was insufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The court granted the Conditional Stay pending provision of state-funded counsel.

The self-represented applicants, charged with fraud and criminal organization offences, brought Rowbotham applications seeking a stay of proceedings until the Attorney General funded their defence.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the applicants failed to meet all three parts of the Rowbotham test.

Specifically, they had not exhausted their legal aid appeals, failed to provide credible and complete financial disclosure to prove indigence, and did not establish that their right to a fair trial would be materially compromised without counsel given their business experience and the straightforward nature of the allegations.

This case concerns the interpretation of a 1985 indemnity agreement granted by the Province of Ontario to Great Lakes Forest Products Limited (now Resolute FP Canada Inc.) and its successors and assigns, regarding mercury contamination.

Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, a subsequent owner of the property, and Resolute sought indemnity from the Province for costs incurred complying with a 2011 environmental remediation order issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the indemnity's broad language covered statutory claims by provincial agencies and that the fettering doctrine did not apply to this business agreement.

Weyerhaeuser was also found to be able to rely on the indemnity as a successor or assignee.

The applicant, charged with fraud and committing an offence for a criminal organization, applied for a Rowbotham order after being denied legal aid due to financial ineligibility.

The court found that the applicant lacked the financial means to retain counsel for a four-month trial and that the complexity of the case, combined with the applicant's lack of legal knowledge and language barriers, necessitated legal representation for a fair trial.

The application was granted, and the charges were stayed until the Ministry of the Attorney General provides funding for counsel.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings pending the provision of state-funded counsel following the denial of legal aid, relying on ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and seeking a Rowbotham order.

The court accepted that legal aid had been finally refused but held the applicant failed to establish indigence due to incomplete and unreliable financial disclosure, unexplained deposits, asset ownership, and lack of corroborating evidence regarding claimed financial limitations.

The court also concluded that the fraud prosecution, involving cheque transactions and documentary evidence, was not legally complex and could proceed fairly with a self‑represented accused supported by interpretation and trial management by the court.

As the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a Rowbotham order, the application was dismissed.