Paul Stewart Champ

The appellant brought a wrongful dismissal action in Ontario against the respondents.

The motion judge stayed the action, finding the appellant was an independent contractor and enforcing a forum selection clause in favour of England.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge made an extricable error of law by conflating the appellant's status as a shareholder with his role in providing services when applying the Belton factors.

Conducting a fresh analysis, the Court concluded the appellant was an employee for the purposes of the Employment Standards Act, rendering the forum selection clause void.

The Court further held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and that the respondents failed to establish England was a more convenient forum.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner decisions ordering the Cabinet Office to obtain and review entries from the Premier's personal cellphone call logs that related to government business.

The IPC had found that these specific call logs were under the control of the Cabinet Office pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's application of the National Defence control test was reasonable and that the decisions appropriately balanced the public's right of access to government information with the protection of personal privacy.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its motion to oppose confirmation of an assessment of a solicitor's account.

The motion judge had found that the appellant's failure to file an objection prior to the issuance of the certificate of assessment was fatal to its challenge, and that there was no basis to interfere with the Assessment Officer's costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the objection issue was academic as no jurisdictional exception applied, and that the Assessment Officer's costs award was well within her discretion given the appellant's complete refusal to pay the account and the respondent's prior offer to settle.

The Crown applied to designate the offender as a dangerous offender following a conviction for arson.

The offender has severe cognitive disabilities and a history of trauma, and sets fires as a coping mechanism.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

However, the court also found that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) historically failed to provide the offender with appropriate, tailored mental health treatment, resulting in prolonged periods of segregation.

The court held that serving an indeterminate sentence in a penitentiary without meaningful treatment would extinguish any hope of rehabilitation and parole, constituting an anticipatory breach of the offender's rights against cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

As a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, the court ordered CSC to transfer the offender to a provincial psychiatric hospital within 120 days and retained supervisory jurisdiction to monitor compliance.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to halt a proposed class proceeding by downtown Ottawa residents and businesses against "Freedom Convoy" protestors, organizers, and funders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated grounds to believe their claims had substantial merit and that no valid defence was likely to prevail, and that the public interest in allowing the litigation to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

This is a case management order in a class action concerning the scheduling of an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, seeking to stay or dismiss the action for unduly limiting freedom of expression.

The court set a timetable for the anti-SLAPP motion, making it returnable on October 11, 2023, and ordered that no further steps in the proceeding could be taken until this motion was resolved, in accordance with the Act.

A potential motion for change of venue was also noted but deferred.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, considering the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions and recent conflicting Court of Appeal guidance on costs guidelines.

The court awarded the Canadian Nurses Association Defendants $250,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and the Together News Inc. Defendants $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and the parties' expectations prior to new appellate guidance.

This endorsement addresses costs submissions following a decision on competing pleading motions in a class action.

The plaintiffs were substantially successful in their motion to amend pleadings, while the defendants' parallel motion to strike was largely unsuccessful.

Despite the plaintiffs' success, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the public importance of the litigation, which involves exploring the boundaries of constitutionally protected protest rights versus the rights of individual citizens to seek compensation for disruption.

This motion addressed the form of the Statement of Claim in a proposed class proceeding related to the "Freedom Convoy" protest in Ottawa.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim, while a group of defendants moved to strike it.

The court found that the proposed Statement of Claim disclosed plausible causes of action for private and public nuisance, and joint liability, including for punitive damages.

The court largely allowed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, granting leave to issue a further fresh as amended statement of claim and to add new defendants, but ordered the removal of certain paragraphs deemed extraneous, inflammatory, or evidentiary.

The defendants' motion to strike was largely dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Regional Senior Justice MacLeod dated December 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiffs, a group of nurses and their organization who organized protests against COVID-19 mandates outside hospitals, sued the defendants for defamation over statements and articles criticizing their actions.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit, they failed to show that the harm they suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions on matters of public health.

The action was dismissed.

The moving party defendants in a proposed class proceeding related to the 'Freedom Convoy' sought access to $200,000 of frozen escrow funds to retain counsel.

The funds were originally frozen by a Mareva injunction and a criminal restraint order, and were raised through crowdfunding platforms to support convoy participants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the funds were not the personal assets of the defendants and that the moving parties failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure to demonstrate impecuniosity or an inability to defend the action without access to the frozen funds.

The plaintiffs brought a pleading amendment motion in a class proceeding.

Counsel requested an adjournment because the Public Inquiry was ongoing, and certain defendants indicated a desire to bring a motion to strike portions of the claim.

The court ordered the motion adjourned to January 2023, to be heard alongside any motion to strike, and set a timetable for the exchange of materials.

This endorsement concerns the continuation of a motion by the plaintiffs to extend a Mareva Injunction and a cross-motion by certain defendants to dissolve it.

Due to the recent service of voluminous motion material, the plaintiffs requested an adjournment to review the material and conduct cross-examinations.

The court found the request reasonable and granted the adjournment, extending the existing injunction.

All matters were adjourned to a later date for a virtual hearing.

The court also noted a separate forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, which is not intended to affect assets subject to civil judgment for class members.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions related to a Mareva injunction in a class proceeding concerning the 'Freedom Convoy' funds.

The court extended the Mareva injunction with modifications, adjourned motions to dissolve the injunction and amend the statement of claim, and granted a Toronto Dominion Bank interpleader motion to transfer funds to an escrow agent.

The decision also clarified the interplay between the civil Mareva injunction and criminal restraint orders, and addressed issues concerning cryptocurrency seized by police and funds held by a third-party fundraising platform, GiveSendGo LLC.

The court emphasized the importance of keeping separate proceedings distinct while managing related matters.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend an ex parte Mareva injunction previously granted against organizers and funders of the Freedom Convoy.

The injunction aimed to restrain the dissipation of assets for potential civil liability to Ottawa residents and businesses.

The court granted a temporary extension and modification of the injunction by consent, allowing certain funds to be transferred to an escrow agent, and adjourned the motion for a further hearing.

The decision emphasized the civil nature of the proceeding, separate from criminal processes.

This proposed class action sought an ex parte Mareva injunction to freeze assets, including cryptocurrency, of organizers and participants in the 'Freedom Convoy' protest in downtown Ottawa.

The plaintiffs, residents, businesses, and employees, alleged damages from private and public nuisance.

The court found an apparently strong case for tort liability and a serious risk of asset dissipation, particularly with funds purposely moved to avoid seizure.

The injunction was granted, freezing funds controlled by the defendants, and the requirement for an undertaking for damages was waived due to the public interest and class action nature of the case.

The court also approved an amendment to the statement of claim to expand plaintiff classes and add defendants.

The plaintiff sought an emergency interlocutory injunction against the defendants, who were involved in a protest causing severe noise disturbance in downtown Ottawa.

The defendants' counsel requested an adjournment, citing insufficient time to review extensive materials and prepare a proper defense.

The court, acknowledging the national importance of the matter and the need for a complete record to craft an enforceable *in persona* injunction, granted the adjournment until February 7, 2022.

The judge emphasized the inherent difficulty of framing an enforceable injunction against a large, fluid group of unnamed parties and the equitable requirement for certainty in such orders.

The plaintiff, a resident of downtown Ottawa, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants and other participants in the 'Freedom Convoy' protest from sounding vehicle horns.

The plaintiff alleged the constant noise constituted a private nuisance causing irreparable harm, including potential permanent hearing damage.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm based on medical evidence, and that the balance of convenience favoured the residents' right to quiet over the protestors' right to express themselves via horn honking.

An interim injunction was granted for 10 days.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by Public Services and Procurement Canada to administratively close his secret security clearance application and revoke his reliability status.

The applicant argued the decision breached procedural fairness.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent conceded that a breach of procedural fairness occurred and agreed the decision should be set aside and redetermined.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review based on the respondent's concession, ordered a redetermination by a different investigator in accordance with the Standard on Security Screening, and awarded costs to the applicant.