Richard Macklin

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a consent eviction order and to lift the automatic stay, or alternatively for interim rent and security for costs.

The tenant had lived rent-free for nearly a year while pursuing various proceedings before the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Divisional Court declined to quash the appeal, finding it was not manifestly devoid of merit, and refused to order security for costs.

However, the court ordered the tenant to pay interim rent of $1,200 per month pending the disposition of the appeal, noting there was no justification for the tenant to live rent-free.

The Ontario College of Teachers and the member brought a consent motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The College advised the Discipline Committee that there was no evidence to support the allegations.

The Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations, finding the resolution to be in the public interest.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, was transferred from a medium security facility to a maximum security facility by order of the Ontario Review Board.

The Review Board concluded that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code did not apply to the specific conditions of the disposition.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' requirement applies to the disposition order as a whole, including its conditions.

The Court found that the Review Board committed an error of law and that the Crown failed to demonstrate that no substantial wrong occurred, entitling the appellant to a re-hearing.

The plaintiffs, the estate and family of a man fatally shot by police, brought actions for misfeasance in a public office and negligence against the involved officers, the Chief of Police, the Police Services Board, and the Province.

The claims arose from the officers' alleged failure to cooperate with the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation.

The defendants moved to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the actions for misfeasance in a public office against the officers and the Chief, and the negligence action against the Chief, could proceed, as it was not plain and obvious they would fail.

However, the negligence actions against the Board and the Province were struck out because they did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiffs to ensure officers cooperated with the SIU.

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying him standing at an ongoing inquest.

The coroner found the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements for standing under either the public law or private law tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the coroner's decision was entitled to curial deference and was not unreasonable.

The court emphasized the need to avoid interrupting the ongoing statutory hearing and found no serious error in principle that would justify interference.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard three appeals concerning the constitutionality of s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code, which sets out a procedure for determining claims of solicitor-client privilege in relation to documents seized from a law office under a warrant.

The Court held that s. 488.1 violates s. 8 of the Charter because it more than minimally impairs solicitor-client privilege.

The provision allows privilege to be lost through the inaction of the lawyer, requires the naming of clients, lacks notice to clients, imposes strict time limits without judicial discretion, and permits the Attorney General to inspect documents before privilege is determined.

The Court struck down s. 488.1 and established common law guidelines for law office searches.

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the successful defendants, Woodhouse, Gerrits, and Ontario, their costs of the motion before the lower court and their motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, in addition to their costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs and the remaining defendants agreed that no costs would be awarded among them due to divided success.

Appeals from rule 21 motions in an action arising from a fatal police shooting and the subsequent SIU investigation.

The majority held that the tort of misfeasance in public office requires abuse of statutory or administrative power, and that an alleged failure by police officers to co-operate with an SIU investigation under s. 113(9) of the Police Services Act was a breach of duty, not an abuse of power.

The majority struck the misfeasance claim against the officers and the negligent supervision claim against Ontario, but allowed the negligent supervision claim against the police chief to proceed.

The majority also held the Board could not be liable for negligent supervision because the Act confined it to policy functions and precluded operational direction.

A dissent would have permitted the misfeasance and broader negligent supervision claims to proceed.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of s. 810.1 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the child-protection recognizance regime created a status offence, was overbroad, and was impermissibly vague, and further challenged the availability of arrest and detention procedures in such proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 810.1 is preventive, not punitive, and is directed at assessing present risk of future harm to children rather than punishing status.

The court found the regime sufficiently tailored and procedurally safeguarded, upheld the reading down of 'shall' to 'may' in s. 810.1(2), and confirmed that ss. 507(4) and 515 apply to s. 810.1 proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant coalition sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying them standing at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the coroner made no serious error in principle in applying the tests for direct interest and public interest standing.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that they were denied procedural fairness by not receiving the coroner's full brief prior to the standing hearing.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge improperly allowed the Crown to reopen its case and then amend the indictment in a child sexual offence prosecution.

The majority held that once the defence had begun to answer the case by disclosing an intended alibi, the discretion to reopen was severely restricted and could be exercised only in the narrowest circumstances.

Reopening to correct the complainant's mother's evidence about the year of the alleged offences effectively changed the case the accused had committed to meet and indirectly violated the principle against self-incrimination.

The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal on the remaining count stood.