Paul J. Osier

The applicants sought summary relief terminating powers of attorney granted by an elderly individual, declaring incapacity, appointing a guardian, and requiring an accounting of property proceeds.

The motion relied on Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure despite the proceeding having been commenced by notice of application and subject to a prior consent order directing that the issues be determined at trial.

The court held that Rule 20 summary judgment procedures apply to actions commenced by statement of claim and could not be used in this application where a trial had already been ordered.

The record also disclosed extensive credibility disputes and conflicting allegations concerning care of the grantor and management of property.

The court concluded that the issues required determination at trial and dismissed the motion.

The appellant mother appealed an order for Crown wardship without access regarding her child.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that the mother failed to provide evidence showing a realistic possibility that contact would be meaningful, beneficial, and in the child's best interests.

Fresh evidence regarding another child was deemed of limited assistance due to differences in age and the mother's involvement.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming Crown wardship without access.

The appellant commenced an action in negligence against her husband's employer for damages arising from his alleged wrongful dismissal.

The husband was a unionized employee whose grievance had been settled under a collective agreement.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim based on the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that any claim related to the employment should have been pursued under the collective agreement and the appellant had no independent cause of action.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, the respondent Ministry of Natural Resources sought partial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount of $8,034.09 to be reasonable and ordered it payable forthwith.

On consent, the respondent County of Haldimand was awarded costs of $2,500.

The applicant withdrew its application for judicial review after its related appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court found that the judicial review application was unnecessary and constituted re-litigation of issues already decided by multiple bodies.

The court awarded the Crown $10,000 in fees and $4,000 in disbursements on a substantial indemnity scale.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Municipal Board regarding the revocation of a licence, arguing the Board erred in law by failing to understand that the revocation was tainted by prior allegedly unlawful actions by the Ministry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision and noting that the Board's conclusion that the appellant was not in compliance with licence conditions was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $4,000.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on drug trafficking charges.

Police officers responded to a 911 call about armed men and lawfully detained the respondent and his passenger in their vehicle.

After a pat-down search yielded no weapons, officers searched the vehicle and found cocaine and ecstasy in a zippered case in the glove compartment.

The trial judge found the extended vehicle search violated section 8 of the Charter as it was not reasonably necessary, and excluded the evidence under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the officers could have easily verified the respondent's innocent explanation instead of conducting the extended search.

The Crown appealed a sentence of three years' imprisonment and a six-year driving prohibition imposed on the respondent, who pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing death and one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The respondent crossed the centre line and collided with an oncoming vehicle, killing two children and injuring their mother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge made no error in principle and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the mitigating factors, including an early guilty plea, lack of a prior criminal record, and genuine remorse.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the effect of s. 11 of The Public Authorities Protection Act.

The Ontario Court of Appeal had previously refused leave to appeal on this specific issue from the judgment of the Ontario Divisional Court.

Applying the principle from Ernewein, the Supreme Court held that it will not entertain an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of an intermediate appellate court to grant leave to appeal to it.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed without costs.