Nikita Rathwell

This appeal concerned the trial judge's decision to appoint two amici curiae in a highly contentious and complex family law trial involving interjurisdictional issues.

The applicant mother was self-represented and exhibited emotional instability, while the respondent father's counsel was removed due to lack of funds.

The Attorney General of Ontario, as intervenor, moved to set aside the amici orders, arguing they constituted a de facto appointment of state-funded counsel.

The trial judge dismissed that motion, and this court upheld that decision.

The court found the appointment of amici was essential for the judge to discharge judicial functions, stabilize proceedings, and ensure a fair trial, consistent with established legal principles.

The amici's roles were distinct from traditional counsel, as they could not be dismissed by the parties and were not obligated to follow their instructions, primarily serving the court's needs.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages, arguing it was limitation-barred.

The plaintiffs, owners of a vocational college, claimed losses due to an excessively protracted regulatory compliance process and a restraining order.

The court found that the limitation period began when the plaintiffs were declared compliant on January 12, 2012, and was tolled during Ombudsman-mediated compensation discussions from that date until June 24, 2013.

As the action was commenced on June 3, 2015, it was within the two-year limitation period.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking her claim and dismissing her action against healthcare defendants and government entities.

The appellant alleged psychological harassment and criminal negligence resulting in bodily harm arising from her admission and involuntary treatment at a hospital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on multiple grounds: the appellant failed to comply with statutory notice requirements under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act; claims against the Local Health Integration Network were precluded by statutory immunity absent a finding of bad faith; and the Charter claim lacked material facts supporting any infringement.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded to the respondents.

The respondent amicus brought a motion for leave to include the trial judge's final decision as fresh evidence in the appeal record, and for leave to serve the respondent with appeal documents by email.

The Ministry of the Attorney General, appealing the trial judge's earlier refusal to set aside the amicus appointments, opposed the fresh evidence request.

The court granted the uncontested request for email service.

However, applying the Sengmueller test, the court dismissed the request to admit the trial decision as fresh evidence, finding it would not likely be conclusive of an issue in the appeal.