Samantha Pillon

The moving parties, who were inmates placed in administrative segregation after the opt-out deadline in a class action against Canada, brought a motion to opt out of the class action.

The motion became moot when the parties agreed to amend the class definition and provide a new opt-out period.

The moving parties sought costs for the unargued motion.

The court found that the motion was unnecessary because the moving parties were not class members to begin with, and ordered the costs of the motion to be in the cause of their external individual actions against Canada.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Judicial Council dismissing his complaint against a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The CJC had determined that the complaint related to judicial decision-making rather than judicial conduct, and advised it would not respond to future complaints about judicial decisions.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the CJC reasonably applied the Judges Act and Review Procedures in concluding that the matters complained of pertained to judicial decisions, which are not within the CJC's mandate to review.

The Attorney General of Canada sought judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to refer a complaint by Christopher Karas to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

The complaint alleged that Health Canada discriminated against him on the basis of sexual orientation through its oversight of Canadian Blood Services' blood donor deferral policy for men who have sex with men (MSM).

The Attorney General argued that Health Canada was not a proper party and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court held that the Commission's investigator's report formed part of its reasons and that the decision to refer the matter to the Tribunal was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Applicants sought leave under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules to pursue judicial review of multiple decisions in respect of which relief is sought, specifically challenging up to 600 individual technical opinions made by the RCMP adding firearms to the Firearms Reference Table.

The Court dismissed the motions, finding the Applicants failed to specify which technical opinions they wanted to review, thereby running afoul of Rule 301(c)(ii) and preventing the Court from determining the matters under review or exercising its discretion to make a Rule 302 exception.

The Attorney General moved in writing to amend the style of cause to substitute the Minister of Justice for the Supreme Court of Canada Registrar and to strike the underlying judicial review application.

The applicant sought to compel the Registrar to place his motion for reconsideration before a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Applying binding authority, the Court held that a decision of the Registrar under Rule 73(4) is not reviewable by the Federal Court, as the Supreme Court is not a federal board or tribunal.

The motion was granted, the style of cause amended, and the application struck without leave to amend as bereft of any possibility of success.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction staying the operation of regulations prohibiting certain firearms pending the outcome of their applications for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the motions, finding the applicants failed to demonstrate with clear and non-speculative evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.