Nicola Elizabeth Simmons

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court order dismissing an application for judicial review of an Ontario Special Education Tribunal decision, and a motion to reopen a previous Court of Appeal decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding them to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process.

The judicial review application was premature as the Tribunal proceedings were ongoing, and the moving party failed to meet the high standard required to reopen a previous decision.

The moving party sought reconsideration of a single judge's order dismissing a motion to stay Divisional Court proceedings.

The stay was sought to prevent the Divisional Court from issuing a publication ban and anonymization order regarding the moving party's child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for reconsideration as moot, noting that the Divisional Court had already granted the publication ban and anonymization order.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issue, finding no matter of public importance that extended beyond the interests of the parties.

The College of Early Childhood Educators sought to withdraw accusations of professional misconduct against the respondent member.

The respondent had signed an undertaking to complete remedial coursework and mentorship, which she successfully completed.

The Discipline Committee allowed the withdrawal, finding that the public interest was protected by the respondent's successful completion of the undertaking and her demonstrated commitment to improving her practice.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal refusing to recuse its adjudicators for alleged bias.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was an abuse of process because the tribunal proceedings were ongoing.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative proceeding, the court dismissed the application as patently premature.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion requesting that the hearing panel recuse themselves due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant alleged bias after the panel chair directed that written submissions might be required on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the requested placement, and because the chair was cross-appointed to another tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person would not conclude that the panel's actions, which included attempting to assist the appellant in focusing on relevant evidence and exercising its authority to determine a jurisdictional issue, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent Durham Student Transportation Services (DSTS) requested to add the Durham District School Board (DDSB) as a respondent to human rights applications alleging discrimination in school bus transportation based on family status.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found that DDSB's policies determined transportation eligibility and DSTS could not act without DDSB's authority.

As DDSB consented and there was no prejudice, the Tribunal granted the request to add DDSB as a respondent.

Following a complex motion involving amendments to a statement of claim and issues relating to government funding of a transportation consortium’s defence, the court addressed costs among multiple parties.

The moving plaintiffs were successful in obtaining leave to amend their claim and to add the provincial government as a defendant, but were unsuccessful in obtaining litigation funding from the government.

The court applied the principles under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of actual legal fees incurred.

Costs of $150,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs payable by the Crown for the successful amendment issues, while the Crown was awarded $61,950 payable by the plaintiffs for the unsuccessful funding request.

The issue of the defendant consortium’s costs relating to funding was deferred to the trial judge or a future judicial review.

The plaintiffs, seven private school bus operators, brought a motion to amend their statement of claim and add the Ministry of Education as a party defendant in their action against a student transportation consortium regarding the use of Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for procurement.

The plaintiffs also sought an order declaring the Ministry's funding of the consortium's legal costs ultra vires and an interim costs funding order for their own legal fees.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings and add the Ministry as a defendant, finding no non-compensable prejudice and that the Ministry was a necessary party given its role in directing the RFP process.

The court adjourned the issue of the consortium's funding to the trial judge, noting it required judicial review.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' request for interim costs funding, finding they had not established impecuniosity.