Ravi Kumar Amarnath

The appellants (Crown) appealed a Divisional Court order that declared the Math Proficiency Test (MPT) unconstitutional for infringing s. 15(1) of the Charter due to disproportionate adverse impact on racialized teacher candidates, and found it not justified under s. 1.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred by relying on incomplete and preliminary data (July 2021 Data) to conclude a disproportionate adverse impact.

The Court of Appeal, reviewing more complete data (December 2021 Data), determined that the MPT did not have a disproportionate adverse impact on racialized candidates' entry to the teaching profession, nor did it reinforce existing disadvantages.

The appeal was allowed, and the Divisional Court's order, including the declaration that s. 18(1)(c) of the OCTA was unconstitutional, was set aside.

The appellant, through her litigation guardian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that reversed a certification order for a proposed class action against the Government of Ontario.

The class action alleged negligence in the administration of services for adults with developmental disabilities and a breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred in recharacterizing the negligence claim as impugning core policy decisions and in striking the section 7 Charter claim.

The Court held that the negligence claim concerned operational failures within existing resources, and the section 7 claim alleged psychological harm from the arbitrary administration of waitlists for approved services, which was not foreclosed by existing jurisprudence.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the motion judge's certification order.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a proposed class action and constitutional challenge as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action asserted a global conspiracy related to COVID-19, seeking billions in damages from various domestic and foreign entities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, legal analysis, or factual findings, and affirmed that the case was a clear instance for applying Rule 2.1.01.

This endorsement addresses motions by the Tamil Rights Group (TRG) and the Tamil Coalition (National Council of Canadian Tamils, Canadian Tamil Academy, Canadian Tamil Youth Alliance) to intervene as parties or friends of the court in two joined applications.

The original applicants are challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, alleging it is ultra vires and violates Charter rights.

The court granted intervener status as parties to TRG and the Tamil Coalition, finding their contributions useful for a balanced factual record, particularly given the applicants' factual assertions about the Act's basis.

The court imposed specific limitations on the interveners' participation to avoid undue delay or prejudice.

The Court of Appeal heard motions for leave to intervene from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) in a class action appeal concerning the Basic Income Pilot Project.

The CCLA's unopposed motion was granted, allowing it to file a factum and present oral arguments under specific terms.

The ISAC's motion was dismissed without costs because its direct involvement in shaping the factual matrix of the Basic Income Pilot Project, including consultations and advice to participants, made it too closely associated with the potential class members and the underlying factual issues, thus compromising its role as an intervener.

The Superior Court of Justice, on remittal from the Divisional Court, reconsidered the certification of an operational negligence class action claim against the provincial government in light of the newly enacted Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) and a constitutional challenge under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court found it was not plain and obvious that the operational negligence claim was statute-barred by the CLPA, particularly due to the "decision" requirement in s. 11(4) of the CLPA and the plaintiff's pleadings.

Furthermore, the court determined that the s. 96 constitutional challenge to the CLPA was not plainly and obviously doomed to fail, emphasizing the importance of access to courts and the Supreme Court's caution against restoring complete governmental immunity by broadly defining "policy matters." The court concluded that the meaning and constitutionality of the CLPA should be decided on a complete record at trial or summary judgment, not on a pleadings motion.

The original certification of the operational negligence claim remained intact, and a new common issue regarding the CLPA's effect was added by consent.

Paul Boone, a person under disability, and his parents, challenged the constitutionality of Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 5 of O. Reg. 195/04, arguing they compel disclosure of solicitor-client or litigation privileged information, thereby infringing s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The court dismissed both constitutional challenges, finding a lack of factual basis to support the assertions of discriminatory effect and concluding that the impugned provisions do not mandate or inevitably require the disclosure of privileged information.

The motion for approval of a partial settlement was adjourned for the plaintiffs to provide the necessary evidentiary support.

The appellant was convicted of picking up a passenger for compensation without proper authorization at Pearson International Airport, contrary to section 39.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

He was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for one year.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on three grounds: (1) that the trial court reversed the burden of proof; (2) that he was entrapped by police; and (3) that the enforcement of section 39.1(1) at the airport violated the constitutional principle of interjurisdictional immunity.

The appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the fine to $500 and varying the probation condition to permit the appellant to pick up fares at the airport if properly licensed by the airport authority.

Enrique Kachuka brought a motion under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude seized currency as evidence in a forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario under the Civil Remedies Act.

Kachuka argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrants of his vehicle and apartment was legally insufficient, leading to an unreasonable search and seizure in breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

He also contended that police breached his s. 8 rights by submitting a report of seized items past the statutory deadline and with technical errors.

The court found that the issuing Justice of the Peace had reasonable grounds to issue the search warrants, as police surveillance and corroborated confidential informant information established a sufficient nexus between observed drug transactions and Kachuka's apartment.

The court also determined that the reporting delays and errors did not constitute a meaningful infringement of s. 8 rights, as there was no residual privacy interest in the seized cash.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the forfeiture application was to proceed.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application and an appeal related to provincial offence convictions.

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario, sought costs.

The Authority requested substantial indemnity costs, citing unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and procedural abuses by the applicants/appellants.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that the conduct, while improper, did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct.

Instead, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to both respondents, considering factors such as responding to improperly brought proceedings and non-compliance with procedural rules.

The applicants/appellants brought an application and an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice challenging provincial offense convictions and sentence against Murray Brown.

The respondents, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario, brought motions to strike out both proceedings.

The court found that the applicants/appellants lacked standing to challenge Mr. Brown's convictions and sentence, and that the appeal was brought to the wrong court (it should have been to the Ontario Court of Justice).

The court also determined that the application constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Provincial Offenses Court decisions.

Consequently, both the amended application and the appeal, along with the appellants' motion for interim relief, were struck out and dismissed.