Ravi Kumar Amarnath

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.

A case management conference was held regarding an application for judicial review and an urgent motion for a stay of a provincial regulation.

The impugned regulation's effective date was delayed, rendering the urgent stay motion unnecessary.

The parties agreed on a schedule for the application, but the court declined to set a hearing date due to the suspension of ordinary court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The urgent stay motion was withdrawn without costs, and the parties were directed to seek further directions for scheduling once court operations resume or via videoconference.

The applicant, acting as substitute decision-maker for his incapable elderly father, brought an application for judicial review challenging a hospital's COVID-19 visitor restriction policy and a related memorandum from the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The applicant argued the restrictions violated his father's rights under sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter by preventing in-person visits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that neither the hospital's policy nor the CMOH memorandum were subject to judicial review as they did not involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision with a sufficient public character.

Furthermore, the court held that even if reviewable, the policies did not infringe the Charter, as they were based on sound medical and epidemiological evidence rather than discriminatory presumptions, were not arbitrary or overbroad, and did not constitute state-imposed punishment or treatment.

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.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from an order certifying a class action against Ontario.

The underlying class action alleges negligence and Charter breaches in the provision of services to adults with developmental disabilities.

On appeal, Ontario argues that the recently enacted Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 provides immunity from the negligence claims.

The CCLA sought to intervene to argue that Ontario's expansive interpretation of the Act's immunity provisions violates section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court granted the motion, finding that the CCLA would make a useful and distinct contribution to a matter of public importance without causing injustice or undue delay to the parties.

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 appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying OHIP funding for out-of-country residential psychiatric treatment at the Austen Riggs Centre.

The Board found that the appellant failed to establish that the required services were not available at an OHIP preferred provider facility.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable, noting that while the chosen facility may have been preferred by the appellant's expert, the evidence did not show that the preferred providers could not provide the necessary care.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for the forfeiture of the proceeds of the sale of six clubhouses used by the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, as well as various seized property including Outlaws paraphernalia, currency, and weapons.

The responding party argued the application was statute-barred and raised several Charter challenges.

The court found the clubhouses were both proceeds and instruments of unlawful activity and ordered the proceeds of their sale forfeited.

The court also ordered the forfeiture of wearable Outlaws paraphernalia, currency, documents, and weapons as instruments of unlawful activity.

The court found that while the forfeiture of wearable paraphernalia infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter, the infringement was justified under s. 1.

The court declined to order forfeiture of decorative paraphernalia, support wear, and 'white power' memorabilia, finding insufficient evidence they were instruments of unlawful activity.

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.

The Concerned Citizens of Brant and the County of Brant appealed the issuance of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an aggregate washing operation at the Dufferin Aggregates Paris Pit.

The appellants sought revisions to the conditions of both instruments to provide greater protection to the local aquifer, particularly concerning water taking volumes, monitoring requirements, and the potential for atrazine contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving several revised conditions on consent of the parties, including clarifications to water taking limits and requirements for public posting of contingency plans.

However, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' requests for extensive additional monitoring and a new science risk assessment for atrazine, finding that the aquifer was not stressed, the existing conditions were sufficiently precautionary, and there was no credible threat of atrazine contamination from the operations.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals by the Concerned Citizens of Brant and the Corporation of the County of Brant against the issuance of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval to CRH Canada Group Inc. for an aggregate washing operation.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions and set a schedule for the exchange of documents, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

The proponent sought various instruments and undertakings for the extension of the Acton Quarry.

Following an interim decision approving the undertakings and a deferral of the Environmental Compliance Approval and Permit to Take Water to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the proponent confirmed there were no inconsistencies between the draft Ministry instruments and the Board's approvals.

The Board issued its final decision confirming the interim decision.

The proponent sought approval for various instruments and undertakings required for the extension of the Acton Quarry.

Following extensive review and consultation, the public agencies and the proponent reached an agreement on modifications and conditions to protect natural heritage and water resources.

The Board reviewed the planning instruments, including official plan amendments, zoning by-laws, and the aggregate extraction licence, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The undertakings were approved.

A second prehearing was held regarding Dufferin Aggregates' proposed extension of the Acton Quarry.

On consent of all parties, the Joint Board deferred consideration of the Permit to take Water and Environmental Compliance Approval to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, pursuant to s. 5(3) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The Board also varied the procedural schedule for serving and filing expert witness statements and related materials.

This was the first appearance before the Joint Board regarding Dufferin Aggregates' proposed extension of the Acton Quarry.

The Board granted participant status to several individuals and one non-profit group, and set procedural directions and dates for the hearing of the merits.