Administrative Law - ONCA

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents general damages of $75,000 and punitive damages of $75,000 for defamation.

The trial judge found that the appellant, a City manager, made defamatory statements about the respondents' business during a meeting with a supplier representative, acted maliciously in response to complaints the respondent had made about him, and abused his position as a public officer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of defamation, malice, and abuse of position, but set aside the punitive damages award, finding that the trial judge failed to analyze whether the compensatory damages were adequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and condemnation.

The appeal was allowed in part.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing she posed no significant risk to public safety based on the absence of violent behaviour since 2015 and abstention from substance abuse since 2016.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding that the Board properly applied the test under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and that evidence supported a finding of significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that absence of recent violent behaviour eliminated risk, noting that the appellant's stability was contingent on the structured hospital environment and that relapse into substance abuse and medication non-compliance would likely result in psychotic symptoms and violent behaviour.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing appealed from a Superior Court declaration that the GotSkill gaming system is not a game as defined under s. 197(1) of the Criminal Code.

The application judge had concluded that GotSkill was not a game of mixed chance and skill because a sufficiently skilled player could ultimately beat the machine.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that GotSkill is a game of mixed chance and skill.

The court clarified that under the Criminal Code, any game containing both elements of chance and skill—regardless of which predominates—falls within the definition of a game.

The presence of a systematic resort to chance when the game is played multiple times, combined with the skill element required in the game task, was sufficient to classify GotSkill as a game of mixed chance and skill.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that quashed a conviction under the Lobbying Act.

The respondent, a former senior advisor to the Prime Minister, became executive director of the Canada School of Energy and Environment (CSEE) within the five-year post-employment lobbying prohibition period.

He engaged in communications with Industry Canada officials regarding the extension of an uncommitted portion of a $15 million grant to prevent forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal held that the Lobbying Act was unambiguous and that the respondent's communications constituted prohibited lobbying activity respecting the awarding of a financial benefit.

The Court reinstated the conviction, rejecting the appeal judge's reliance on irrelevant factors such as who initiated the communications and whether government officials considered the conduct to be lobbying.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering the continued detention of a not criminally responsible accused at Waypoint Mental Health Care.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, alternatively a transfer to another facility, or in the further alternative, an independent psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the board's finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety based on his extensive criminal history involving sexual violence, his psychiatric diagnoses including psychopathy, and his lack of engagement with treatment programs.

The court dismissed the appeal but directed the board to reconsider the request for an independent assessment at the next annual review.

The Crown appealed a certiorari decision quashing a committal for trial on a charge of breach of trust contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code.

The respondent, an on-duty police officer, refused to assist a member of the public who reported a potential suicide in progress in High Park, Toronto.

The victim subsequently died by suicide.

The application judge found no evidence capable of supporting the necessary mens rea for breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, holding that while the respondent's conduct was egregious, the Crown failed to establish an improper purpose materially different from the mere failure to perform his duty.

The court distinguished between misfeasance in public office (which requires an improper purpose) and neglect of official duty (which does not), and held that a desire to avoid an unpleasant duty does not constitute the requisite improper purpose.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a conditional discharge while finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible of aggravated assault and related offences involving a near lethal knife attack.

He argued the Board erred in failing to grant an absolute discharge, contending the evidence demonstrated he no longer posed a significant threat and that the Board reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion fell within a range of reasonable outcomes based on positive evidence, including the appellant's insufficient concern about his threat when psychotic, initial reluctance to accept case management, and refusal to switch to long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order striking his fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissing his action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the Law Society of Ontario and four individuals involved in investigations and proceedings concerning the appellant over 15 years.

The motion judge found the appellant had failed to provide sufficient particulars of improper purpose or ulterior motive as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the appellant had sufficiently pleaded the elements of both torts through his pleadings and response to the demand for particulars, except as to one respondent against whom no particulars were provided.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence and vacated the costs order, awarding the appellant partial costs of the appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision of Justice MacDonnell of the Superior Court of Justice, which had dismissed their application for mandamus relating to a ruling by a Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing with the analysis provided by MacDonnell J. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 21, 2018, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant argued that he no longer posed a significant danger to public safety due to improved insight into his mental illness, medication compliance, and stable employment and housing.

However, the court found the Board's concerns about recent cocaine use were reasonable given the appellant's history of manic episodes preceded by cocaine use and associated medication non-compliance.

The court allowed the appeal on the basis of transcription errors in the Board's reasons, which confused the appellant with another hospital patient and relied on irrelevant material.

A new hearing was ordered to take place as the appellant's annual review hearing in February 2019.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondents.

The motion had been rescheduled from February 1, 2018 to January 31, 2018, but the appellants did not receive notice of the change because they were in an area without internet access.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellants did not receive adequate notice of the hearing date and allowed the appeal, setting aside the summary judgment.

The respondents' motion was to be rescheduled on proper notice to the appellants.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 19, 2017.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2009, sought transfer from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to a less secure facility.

Although the parties agreed a transfer was appropriate, the Board majority refused the transfer.

The appellant challenged the decision on grounds of procedural unfairness and failure to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board, finding that while procedural fairness was maintained and the Board's decision fell within the range of reasonable outcomes, the Board erred by failing to consider ordering an independent psychiatric assessment given the uncertainty surrounding the appellant's diagnosis.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2000 for assault and uttering threats appealed his disposition of detention in a general forensic unit with community living privileges at the discretion of the hospital.

The appellant argued the Board's finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's majority decision, finding the disposition reasonable based on the appellant's persistent pattern of threatening behaviour, impulsivity, inability to control anger, and the structured environment's role in preventing escalation to physical violence.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining a detention order for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge but the Board continued the detention order at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, finding the appellant presented a significant threat to public safety due to lack of insight into his condition, poor medication compliance without supervision, and substance abuse issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was supported by evidence and represented the least onerous and least restrictive disposition appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for offences including break and entry, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, escaping lawful custody, and robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing the Board unreasonably concluded detention was necessary and improperly considered the risk of illicit drug use and the ease of readmission as factors in its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that supervision of housing and readmission capability are relevant considerations for the Board in determining appropriate dispositions.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding that it had improperly used a post-tender addendum process as a form of "bid shopping" after accepting the respondent's bid.

The trial judge found that a contract had been formed when the municipality's council resolved to award the contract to the respondent, and that the subsequent re-tendering process and award to another bidder constituted a breach of the municipality's contractual obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, affirming that all bidders must be treated fairly in the tender process and that once a bid is accepted and a resolution issued, the municipality is obligated to issue a purchase order incorporating the agreed contract terms.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision that had overturned a Discipline Committee penalty decision.

The Discipline Committee found that a physician sexually abused four female patients by unnecessarily touching their breasts and nipples during stethoscope examinations, and engaged in inappropriate conduct with a fifth patient.

The Committee imposed a six-month suspension with practice restrictions, supervision requirements, and mandatory training.

The Divisional Court found the penalty manifestly unfit and remitted it for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court failed to properly apply the deferential reasonableness standard of review, instead substituting its own view of the appropriate penalty.

The Court of Appeal restored the Discipline Committee's penalty, finding no inconsistent findings of fact and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.

A utility company and rural municipality disputed cost-sharing for gas pipeline relocation necessitated by municipal drainage works.

The utility sought 35% cost contribution from the municipality under a franchise agreement, while the municipality argued the utility should bear the full cost under section 26 of the Drainage Act.

The application judge held that section 26 of the Act overrode the franchise agreement's cost-sharing provisions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act does not prohibit contracting out of its cost-allocation provisions and that the franchise agreement's cost-sharing mechanism applies to drainage works undertaken by the municipality.

An NCR accused appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to be a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention with community living privileges.

The appellant, a 37-year-old with bipolar disorder and a lengthy criminal history, sought an absolute discharge.

The Board's majority relied on evidence that the appellant's marijuana use was potentially linked to hypomanic symptoms and could lead to a full manic episode, during which he might pose a risk of violent behavior.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion unreasonable, noting that despite a substantial risk of substance abuse and reoffending, the appellant had not committed an act of violence since 2004 and the Board's concerns were speculative and insufficiently grounded in evidence to meet the high threshold for "significant threat to public safety."

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 27, 2016.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board should have made further inquiries regarding the cause of the appellant's psychosis (whether from liver disease or bipolar disorder), and second, that the Board erred in rejecting conditions regarding community access and an approved person.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding no error in the Board's acceptance of the joint position that the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety and no error in the Board's decision to impose more limited community access conditions at that time.