Not listed

The Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review and an appeal concerning decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The underlying proceedings involve whether cyberattacks that encrypt servers without data exfiltration trigger notification obligations under privacy legislation.

The court granted the motion on consent, finding that the OHA's sector-wide insights and expertise would make a useful contribution to the court's understanding of the operational impacts of privacy and security challenges on health care organizations.

Egale Canada brought an unopposed motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning whether vaginoplasty without penectomy is an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that Egale has relevant expertise regarding the systemic disadvantages faced by trans and nonbinary individuals in accessing gender-affirming care and would make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice or undue delay.

The applicant sought to commence an application for judicial review of a 2016 Human Rights Tribunal decision, which was identical to an application previously dismissed by the court.

The court dismissed the new application and the motion for an extension of time under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court also ordered that the applicant may not bring further proceedings against the respondent without prior written permission.

The moving party brought two motions seeking to set aside previous orders and recuse the judges who made them.

The court reviewed the motions under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if they were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the motions lacked legal basis, were exemplary of a pattern of abusive behaviour, and were abusive of the court process on their face, the court dismissed both motions without requiring written submissions.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review challenging mid-hearing procedural rulings made by the Law Society Tribunal.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering the dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to prematurity.

The applicant failed to identify any exceptional circumstances justifying interference with the ongoing administrative process.

The court dismissed the application, finding it premature and an abuse of process designed to interrupt a hearing nearing completion.

The court reviewed and approved the first interim report of the Independent Special Advisor (ISA) appointed to review Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claims by former students of St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

The ISA's mandate was to determine if undisclosed OPP investigation documents could have materially affected the compensation paid to claimants.

The court approved the methodology and progress detailed in the report and directed the submission of a further interim report by the end of the year.

The court reviewed and approved the first interim report of the Independent Special Advisor (ISA) appointed to review Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claims by former students of St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

The ISA's mandate was to determine if undisclosed OPP investigation documents could have materially affected the compensation paid to claimants.

The court approved the methodology and progress detailed in the report and directed the submission of a further interim report by the end of the year.

Costs endorsement following a motion by the plaintiff to strike certain paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence.

The court found that success on the motion was mixed, with both parties succeeding on some significant issues and failing on others.

As neither party was substantially successful, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Costs endorsement following a motion by the plaintiff to strike certain paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence.

The court found that success on the motion was mixed, with both parties succeeding on some significant issues and failing on others.

As neither party was substantially successful, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Following a successful motion to set aside a Mareva injunction, the defendant sought costs of over $25,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff did not respond to the costs submissions.

The court found the requested amount excessive for a straightforward motion without cross-examinations and fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside minutes of settlement related to an arbitration award, following a previously dismissed application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court noted concerns regarding its jurisdiction to hear the motion, grant the requested relief, and the lack of factual or legal particulars.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, giving the applicant an opportunity to provide written submissions on why the motion should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The application was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous and vexatious because the applicant had not exhausted her statutory appeal rights under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that it was bound to fail in its current form, but did so without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a statutory appeal.

The applicant requested permission to bring a motion in writing to re-open evidence on four motions for judgment while decisions were under reserve.

The court denied the request, noting that court operations were suspended due to COVID-19 and only urgent matters were being heard.

The court further noted that the applicant failed to follow previous case management directions requiring her to schedule a case management conference and provide a detailed agenda before bringing any motions.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's alleged failure to release a decision on his motion for interim relief.

After the tribunal released its decision, the court considered whether to dismiss the application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the application was rendered moot by the tribunal's decision and that the applicant's remaining challenges to the tribunal's processes lacked any legal basis.

The application was dismissed as frivolous with no costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal refusing to reconsider his appeals, claiming $101 million in damages.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court noted the applicant had previously exhausted all appeals and judicial reviews regarding these decisions, and that claiming damages on judicial review is outside the court's jurisdiction.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the applicant that it is considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome.

The defendant requested a dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff's claim sought $75 million in damages, alleging a vast conspiracy involving his employer, law firms, the government, and the police to silence him regarding corruption and murder.

The court found the allegations to be outrageous, with no chance of success, and indicative of significant mental health problems.

Relying on the mechanism to weed out clear cases of abuse, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process without seeking written submissions.

The Court-Appointed Receiver brought an unopposed motion to approve the sale of certain real estate assets.

The court approved the sale but issued reasons criticizing the Receiver's procedural conduct, specifically the late service of the motion record, late filing with the court, and excessive unilateral sealing of evidence.

The court emphasized the importance of the open court principle and the need to provide stakeholders with sufficient notice and information to make informed decisions.

The court refused to seal outdated appraisals and only temporarily sealed the summary of prior offers and the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The court issued a notice considering the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the plaintiff's submissions and the claim, the court found the pleading devoid of material facts, essential elements of causes of action, and necessary particulars.

The claim was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The court issued a notice considering the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the plaintiff's submissions and the claim, the court found the pleading devoid of material facts, essential elements of causes of action, and necessary particulars.

The claim was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The court issued a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff regarding a Statement of Claim that consisted of a single paragraph seeking to protect a future right to sue.

The plaintiff failed to respond.

The court dismissed the claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as it was devoid of any discernable legal cause of action.