Ram Rammaya

The plaintiffs sought up to $50 million for alleged negligent misrepresentations made by Ministry officials during the regulatory review of a proposed wind energy project requiring a Renewable Energy Approval.

The court held that the Ministry representatives owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs given their sustained, proponent-facing interactions and knowledge of the economic consequences tied to the feed-in-tariff deadline.

However, the court found that none of the four alleged misrepresentations was actionable: some statements were attributable only to government press releases or regulatory materials, while others were factually and legally correct, including statements about the six-month service standard, merits-based review, and the absence of any Indigenous veto.

The court also rejected preliminary defences based on pleading sufficiency, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and a prior release.

The action was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, R.Y.D., brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded legal defence, arguing he lacked the financial means and that counsel was essential for a fair trial.

The Crown opposed, asserting incomplete financial disclosure and that counsel was not essential.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide complete, accurate, and credible evidence of his financial circumstances, thus not satisfying his onus to prove he lacked the means to employ counsel.

This decision addresses the costs of a "Hybrid Motion" brought by Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation against the City of Winnipeg and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

The First Nation sought leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages and clarify the "Headlands Issue" a ruling on a legal issue, and a refusals motion.

The motion had mixed success for all parties.

The First Nation requested substantial indemnity costs of over $200,000, while the defendants sought no costs or partial indemnity of $15,000-$20,000.

The court awarded the First Nation partial indemnity costs of $90,000, payable in the cause, finding no basis for substantial indemnity due to the procedural nature of the motion and the absence of punitive conduct.

The court also noted that principles of reconciliation were not argued on the motion and did not warrant extraordinary costs in this interlocutory context.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

The defendants requested an extension of time to deliver their amended statements of defence or motion materials in response to the plaintiff's forthcoming amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff opposed the extension for the defence but agreed to an extension for costs submissions.

The court granted the defendants' request, extending all timelines to thirty days for all parties.

The plaintiff First Nation brought a hybrid motion seeking to determine an issue of law before trial, amend its statement of claim to increase damages to $2 billion and add particulars regarding the 'Headlands Issue', and compel answers to questions refused during discovery.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they asserted a new, statute-barred cause of action, lacked a necessary party (Canada), and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion to determine an issue of law, finding the factual record was disputed.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, holding it was not plain and obvious that the claims were statute-barred or doomed to fail without Canada, but required the plaintiff to deliver a technically compliant pleading.

The refusals motion was largely dismissed, with only four questions ordered to be answered.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file notices of appeal from two orders that dismissed her previous proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension, including intention to appeal, length of delay, prejudice to the responding parties, and the merits of the appeal.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay, obvious prejudice to the responding parties, and that the proposed appeals were devoid of merit, the court dismissed the motion.

Batchewana First Nation sought to be joined as a necessary party plaintiff or, alternatively, for leave to intervene as an added party plaintiff in the Robinson Superior Treaty action, which concerns claims for augmented annuities.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that Batchewana, a beneficiary of the Robinson Huron Treaty, was not a necessary party to the Superior action, as its claim for augmented annuities based on "just claims" to lands within the Superior Territory was inconsistent with its prior position in the Huron action and did not directly relate to the Superior Treaty's interpretation or compensation.

The court also found that Batchewana did not meet the criteria for intervention and that its proposed intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice to the complex, multi-stage litigation.

Namaygoosisagagun Ojibway Nation sought leave to intervene in the Robinson Superior Treaty action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs and Gull Bay First Nation opposed the intervention, arguing that Namaygoosisagagun was not a recognized band and lacked a collective interest.

The Crown defendants consented with provisos to prevent litigation of Namaygoosisagagun's band status or s. 35 rights within this proceeding.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding that Namaygoosisagagun had a contingent collective interest that met the low threshold for intervention, but imposed strict conditions prohibiting them from seeking to prove or determine issues related to their band status, s. 35 rights, or beneficiary status under the Treaty, and from making submissions conflicting with the plaintiffs' position on distribution.

Teme-Augama Anishnabai and Temagami First Nation (TAA) sought leave to intervene as added party plaintiffs in the Restoule action, a case concerning the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

While the original plaintiffs and Canada consented to the intervention, Ontario opposed a specific condition that would allow TAA to seek leave to file reply reports to Ontario's reports, even if TAA had not previously filed principal reports.

TAA argued this condition was necessary due to unique interests stemming from a prior Supreme Court decision and ongoing negotiations regarding their s. 35 rights.

The court granted the intervention with the disputed condition, finding Ontario's perceived risk of case splitting speculative and emphasizing the potential prejudice to TAA if denied the ability to respond to evidence on critical treaty boundary issues.