Ravi Kumar Amarnath

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 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.