Robert D. Ryan

The applicant moved for an extension of time to perfect his motion for leave to appeal a 2014 by-law infraction conviction.

The applicant had previously appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal.

The motion judge dismissed the extension request on the basis that the grounds of appeal raised only a question of fact (whether the driveway was too wide), which does not constitute a question of law or matter of general public importance required for leave to appeal.

Hydro One appealed an application judge's decision declining to grant a general declaration that the Ontario Provincial Police must produce accident reports containing driver and owner information to parties who suffer property loss in motor vehicle accidents.

Hydro One argued that while section 200(1) of the Highway Traffic Act requires drivers to provide such information on request, this provision is unavailable when only property loss occurs and no representative is present at the scene.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that although it may have had jurisdiction, it was not appropriate to take jurisdiction due to the absence of an active lis, lack of necessary factual record, and absence of interested parties including the Privacy Commissioner and Attorney General.

Hydro One appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice seeking a declaration that the Ontario Provincial Police must provide accident reports containing personal information of drivers and vehicle owners when Hydro One's property is damaged in traffic accidents.

The OPP refused to provide such reports without a court order, citing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal to receive written submissions on two jurisdictional issues: whether the court could make a declaration interpreting a statute under the Rules of Civil Procedure when there is no actual lis between the parties, and whether the court could make a declaration interpreting FIPPA provisions outside the context of a judicial review of a privacy commissioner's decision.

The court assessed costs following successful summary judgment motions by Hydro One Network and Sarah McMillan and Andrew Cauty against the Datta and Khan plaintiffs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for each of the two combined actions.

The court found the claims not excessive in principle but reduced the total amount to account for duplication of services across the two actions, which were treated as one.

Costs were assessed at $9,000 for Hydro One and $9,000 for McMillan and Cauty, to be split equally between the Datta and Khan plaintiffs.

The court noted that a complete indemnity award might have been considered had the plaintiffs' motives been argued, given the claims were entirely devoid of merit.

The defendants, Hydro One and two neighbours, brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions.

The plaintiffs had erected a fence on city property, which the city later ordered removed.

The plaintiffs sued Hydro One for negligence regarding the location of underground services and the neighbours for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of mental distress based on complaints made to the city.

The court granted the motions, finding the claim against Hydro One was statute-barred and lacked merit, and the claim against the neighbours was devoid of merit as there was no evidence of intent to cause harm or damages.

Hydro One Networks Inc. sought unredacted accident reports from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for nine specific motor vehicle accidents and a broad-based order for all future accident reports involving Hydro One.

The OPP consented to provide the specific reports but opposed the broad order, citing obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court dismissed the broad-based application, finding that the Highway Traffic Act does not obligate the OPP to provide such information without a court order, given FIPPA responsibilities, and that judicial oversight is necessary for requests for personal information from non-parties.

The application for the nine specific reports was granted on consent.