Philip Kin-Hung Chan

The plaintiff, Reza Bahramzadeh, sued the Toronto Police Services Board and Officer Amanda Mason for negligence, wrongful arrest, and assault related to his 2008 arrest and a subsequent 2009 assault by a third party while on bail.

The plaintiff alleged excessive force during arrest, fabricated allegations, and police responsibility for the later assault and missing property.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and inconsistent with objective records.

It ruled that the plaintiff's attempts to relitigate criminal convictions constituted an abuse of process and that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest.

The court also found no evidence linking the police to the 2009 assault or the missing property, and no negligence in his transport.

The plaintiff's claims for broad social reforms and unrelated relief were deemed inappropriate for the court.

The action was dismissed.

The Ontario legislature enacted the Better Local Government Act, 2018, which reduced Toronto City Council from 47 to 25 councillors and changed ward boundaries in the middle of a municipal election campaign.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing it violated section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (freedom of expression) and unwritten constitutional principles.

The application judge found the Act violated section 2(b) and allowed the application.

On appeal, the majority (D.M. Miller J.A., with Tulloch and Harvison Young JJ.A. concurring) allowed the appeal and upheld the Act as constitutional.

The majority held that section 2(b) does not guarantee effective expression, does not require government to maintain platforms for expression, and does not incorporate the right to vote from section 3 of the Charter.

The majority also rejected arguments based on unwritten constitutional principles and jurisdictional limits in section 92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

MacPherson J.A. (with Nordheimer J.A. concurring) dissented, finding the Act infringed section 2(b) by interfering with freedom of expression during an active election and that the infringement could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision that declared provisions of Bill 5 (Better Local Government Act, 2018) unconstitutional for violating freedom of expression rights under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 5 reduced Toronto's municipal wards from 47 to 25 mid-election.

The application judge found that the mid-campaign change substantially interfered with candidates' ability to communicate their political messages and violated voters' right to effective representation.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the lower court's order pending appeal, finding a strong likelihood that the application judge erred in law and that the appeal would succeed.

The court held that Bill 5 does not limit or restrict candidates' messages and that the right to effective representation falls under s. 3 (democratic rights), not s. 2(b) (freedom of expression), and s. 3 does not apply to municipal elections.

The province enacted Bill 5, reducing Toronto wards from 47 to 25, mid-municipal election.

Applicants challenged its constitutionality.

The court found Bill 5 violated candidates' and voters' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as it substantially interfered with campaign communication and denied effective representation due to increased ward sizes.

The violation was not justified under s. 1, as the legislative objectives (better decision-making, voter parity) were not pressing and substantial enough to warrant mid-election implementation, nor was minimal impairment demonstrated.

The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional and set aside, requiring the election to proceed with 47 wards.

This is an application under Part Six of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for an order granting the parties access to police records created during a police interaction with a young person that did not result in criminal charges or extrajudicial measures.

The respondent sought access to police records to pursue a discrimination claim before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging that the police interaction was based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability.

The court determined that while the Act does not explicitly provide a statutory pathway for accessing records where no charges were laid and no extrajudicial measures were used, such access is available by necessary implication from the legislative scheme, particularly where the young person's own interests in the proper administration of justice would otherwise be compromised.

The applicant, an unsuccessful candidate in a 2014 municipal election, failed to file an audited financial statement by the statutory deadline, resulting in her ineligibility to run in the next municipal election.

Almost two years later, she sought relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act to permit late filing and removal from the "Candidates in Default" list, primarily to secure a provincial party nomination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that her non-compliance was inadvertent or that she had been sufficiently diligent in attempting to remedy the breach.

The court emphasized the importance of timely financial disclosure for public policy and declined to exercise its equitable discretion.