Ravi Amarnath

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021, arguing it was ultra vires Ontario and infringed their rights to free expression and equality under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Act, finding its dominant purpose was to affirm and commemorate the Tamil-Ontarian community's experience, which falls within Ontario's power over local matters under s. 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court also dismissed the Charter claims, concluding the Act does not suppress expression or draw a discriminatory distinction against Sinhala-Buddhists.

The applicant, Fair Change, brought a constitutional challenge against sections 2, 3, and 5 of the Safe Streets Act, 1999, arguing they violate several Charter rights.

The court granted Fair Change public interest standing.

The court found that the deeming provisions in paragraphs 2(3)2 to 6 of the Act violate the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b), and are not saved by s. 1.

The court also found that the blanket prohibitions on solicitation in certain places under clauses 3(2)(a) to (e) violate freedom of expression and are not minimally impairing, thus not saved by s. 1.

However, the court upheld the prohibition on aggressive solicitation in s. 2(2) and the prohibition on squeegeeing in s. 3(2)(f) as justified limits on freedom of expression.

The court dismissed the challenges under ss. 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The unconstitutional provisions were declared of no force and effect.

The applicants, representing members of Ontario's Sinhalese diaspora, brought applications challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021.

They argued the Act was ultra vires the province and violated their rights under sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that the Act is in pith and substance related to education, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The court further held that the Act does not restrict freedom of expression, nor does it create a discriminatory distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds.

The applicant church sought $75,000 in costs after being unsuccessful on an urgent application for an interim injunction to stay COVID-19 restrictions on in-person religious services.

The church argued costs were warranted because the case raised a novel issue of significant public importance.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the injunction application focused on the narrow interests of the church rather than broad public interest, and turned on settled legal principles rather than novel issues.

No costs were awarded to either party for the injunction application.

The applicant church sought an interim injunction to exempt it from O. Reg. 82/20, which restricted religious gatherings to a maximum of ten people in regions designated as Stage 1 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The church argued the regulation infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the church established a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm.

However, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the public interest in protecting health and preventing the spread of COVID-19 outweighed the temporary restriction on the church's religious freedom.

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for damages resulting from the early termination of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of undertaking, negligence, breach of public law duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the relationship was not contractual, the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision protected by common law and statutory immunity, and there is no constitutional right to the continuation of a government program.

The applicant, a residential tenant living above an unlicensed cannabis retail store, brought an application under section 18(4) of the Cannabis Control Act to lift an interim closure order that barred entry to the entire premises.

The premises had been repeatedly closed by law enforcement due to illegal cannabis sales, but the operators continually breached the closures.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to satisfy the burden of proving that, if access were granted, the premises would not continue to be used for illegal cannabis sales with the landlord's permission.

The self-represented applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that various tax and municipal statutes violated her Charter rights, claiming $4 million in damages and tax refunds, and absolute title to her property free of taxes and laws.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting it relied on cherry-picked legal principles and ignored Section 1 of the Charter.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.