Sandra Nishikawa

The respondents were seasonal agricultural workers who were seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident shortly after arriving in Ontario.

They remained in Ontario for medical treatment after their work permits expired and sought continued OHIP coverage.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board found they were eligible for continued coverage.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the plain wording of the regulation requires a valid work permit for OHIP eligibility, and the respondents ceased to be eligible once their permits expired.

The applicant applied for a school purposes bus licence.

The Ministry of Transportation deferred the decision until the applicant's outstanding criminal charges were resolved.

The applicant sought judicial review to overturn the deferral or compel a decision.

The Divisional Court found the application was not premature but held that the Minister's decision to defer was reasonable given the safety concerns arising from the outstanding charges, which included possession of a switchblade and possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought an application under the Civil Remedies Act for the civil forfeiture of a residential property and a vehicle, alleging they were instruments of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking.

The court found that both the property and the vehicle were instruments of unlawful activity.

However, the application was dismissed.

The court held that the owner of the vehicle was a 'responsible owner' who took reasonable steps to prevent its unlawful use.

Regarding the real property, although the owner failed to establish the responsible owner exception, the court found that forfeiture was clearly not in the interests of justice due to the Attorney General's unexplained six-year delay in bringing the application, during which the owner unwittingly built up equity in the property.

The moving parties sought exemption from attending examinations for discovery on medical grounds.

The court considered the prima facie right of a party to examine adverse parties under Rule 31.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirement that any exemption be supported by compelling medical evidence.

The medical notes provided were vague and lacked detail regarding the alleged inability to participate in discovery or the specific risks posed by the process.

The court held that the moving parties failed to discharge their burden to justify exemption from discovery.

The motion was dismissed, though the court permitted reasonable accommodations during discovery to mitigate potential health concerns.

The moving party, Maggie's: The Toronto Sex Workers' Action Project, brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of prostitution-related offences.

The moving party sought to raise a new challenge under s. 15 of the Charter and to argue that the legislation was impermissibly driven by moral views.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene on the s. 15 issue, finding that the evidentiary record was not developed for such a challenge and that allowing it would be unfair to the parties and delay the appeal.

The court also declined to grant separate intervener status on the morality issue, as it was already being raised by others, but permitted the moving party to join an existing intervener group.

The appellant, a probationary managerial employee, brought an action against her employer involving whistle-blowing allegations.

The employer brought a motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction, arguing the appellant should have used the grievance procedure under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the employer failed to advise the appellant of the grievance procedure, and by the time jurisdiction was raised, the grievance period had expired.

The Court held that the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction and that denying the appellant access to the court would leave her without a remedy.

The appeal was allowed and the employer's motion was dismissed.