Priscila Jales Portela Atkinson

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to institute a proceeding against the Crown regarding the Ontario government's decision on the Ontario Science Centre.

The court dismissed the application for leave, finding that the proposed proceeding lacked a legal basis and reasonable grounds, and the applicant failed to demonstrate standing to raise the public policy issues.

The moving party sought to review a December 2, 2022 order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal and requested an adjournment at the hearing.

The Court dismissed the adjournment request as unfounded.

The review motion itself was found to be without merit, as the original order contained no error and was, in fact, helpful to the moving party by providing directions, relief from rules compliance, and an extension to perfect a motion for leave to appeal.

The review motion was dismissed, and the moving party was granted a final 30-day extension to perfect his motion for leave to appeal, with costs awarded to the responding party.

This endorsement addresses four motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in a constitutional challenge brought by Animal Justice et al. against the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020.

The applicants in the main case allege violations of Charter rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, liberty, security of the person, arbitrary detention, and reverse onus.

The court applied the test for intervention, considering the nature of the case, the issues, and the likelihood of a useful contribution without causing injustice or expanding the record.

The motion by Justice for Migrant Workers was dismissed for lack of a substantial interest and for attempting to expand the issues.

The motion by Centre for Free Expression was allowed in part, limited to the existing issues and excluding a proposed s. 2(a) Charter argument due to lack of a developed record and expertise.

The motions by Animal Alliance of Canada and Regan Russell Foundation were fully allowed, as they met the criteria and did not seek to expand the issues.

All successful interventions were granted subject to specific conditions on written and oral submissions.