Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO (DIVISIONAL COURT)
RE: Gerald Michael Vaughan, Moving Party -and- Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario, The Minister of Health of Ontario, George Kytayko and Russell Fleming, Respondents
BEFORE: LAX J.
COUNSEL: G.M. Vaughan, in Person V. Yolles, for the Respondents
HEARD: July 18, 2003
ENDORSEMENT
1The grounds for this motion do not meet the requirements for leave under Rule 62.02(4).
2Justice Nordheimer refused the motion for injunction on two bases. The applicant was one of several parties to an identical motion seeking the same relief, which was heard by Lang J. and dismissed. He found that this ran afoul of the principle of res judicata. Justice Nordheimer’s decision is consistent with the established case law and the doctrine applies equally to claims under the Charter: Las Vegas Strip Ltd. v. Toronto (City) (1996), 30 O.R. (3d) 286 (Gen. Div.), appeal dismissed (1997), 32 O.R. (3d) 651 (C.A.).
3Nordheimer J. carefully considered the RJR Macdonald test and found that the second and third steps had not been met. He correctly applied the test.
4There is no good reason to doubt the correctness of his decision and the legal issues raised are not of general importance as explained in Greslik v. Ontario Legal Aid Plan (1988), 65 O.R. (2d) 110 (Div. Ct.).
5This motion was argued by conference call, which can present challenges for the parties and the court. However, the court was greatly assisted by and appreciates the careful and well-organized materials that were prepared.
6The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed, but without costs.
LAX J.
DATE: July 21, 2003