Sara Blake

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding vicarious liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the issue did not need to be decided in light of the court's disposition in a companion case (C50105).

Costs were also addressed in the companion case.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that their section 7 notice was insufficient to alert the Crown to a claim of vicarious liability for persons acting under the authority of the Coroner's Office.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Master that the Crown should not be left to guess its possible liability, in accordance with the principles in Mattick Estate.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police and the Crown.

The trial judge found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges related to an illegal firearms transaction, despite minor discrepancies in descriptions and a late-disclosed alibi.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting that the discrepancies were matters for a trier of fact and did not undermine the existence of reasonable and probable grounds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director to place a hold on an approval process for an international adoption.

The Divisional Court granted the application, quashed the Director's decision, and ordered the Director to notify the relevant authorities, including the China Centre of Adoption Affairs and the Canadian Embassy, that the temporary hold was no longer in effect and that the approval of the proposed adoption was in full force and effect.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Tribunal failed to make necessary findings of fact regarding the mailing and receipt of a letter, and took into account irrelevant considerations.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The Ministry of Correctional Services and a journalist (Jane Doe) both brought applications for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) regarding access to records relating to allegations of abuse by Ministry employees.

The Divisional Court held that the IPC correctly interpreted the employment-related exclusion in s. 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding it did not apply to records of civil litigation where the Crown is vicariously liable for employee torts.

The Court also upheld the IPC's findings on solicitor-client and litigation privilege under s. 19, and personal privacy under s. 21.

However, the Court found the IPC erred by failing to apply the public interest override in s. 23 to records exempted under s. 19, and referred the matter back to the IPC.

The Ministry of Correctional Services and a journalist (Jane Doe) both brought applications for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) regarding access to records relating to allegations of abuse by Ministry employees.

The Divisional Court held that the IPC correctly interpreted the employment-related exclusion in s. 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding it did not apply to records of civil litigation where the Crown is vicariously liable for employee torts.

The Court also upheld the IPC's findings on solicitor-client and litigation privilege under s. 19, and personal privacy under s. 21.

However, the Court found the IPC erred by failing to apply the public interest override in s. 23 to records exempted under s. 19, and referred the matter back to the IPC.

The complainants, family members of deceased involuntary psychiatric patients, alleged that s. 10 of the Coroners Act discriminated against them on the basis of mental disability by making inquests discretionary for involuntary patients but mandatory for inmates in penal institutions.

The Human Rights Tribunal found discrimination and ordered inquests and damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while a coroner's inquest is a 'service' under s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, the differential treatment under the Coroners Act does not amount to discrimination.

The distinction is based on the different vulnerable circumstances and levels of public oversight in penal institutions versus psychiatric facilities, not on disability.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred by failing to make findings of fact regarding whether a letter was mailed to or received by the insured, and by incorrectly characterizing the insurer-insured relationship as fiduciary rather than contractual.

The Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine these issues under the Crop Insurance Act.

The application for judicial review was granted, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted to the Tribunal.

The appellant, who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, applied for a declaration restricting the interpretation of the victim notification requirements under s. 672.5(13.2) of the Criminal Code and challenging their constitutional validity.

The Ontario Review Board had previously adjourned his hearings to notify potential victims, but eventually granted him an absolute discharge when no victims were found.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the appellant had already been discharged and there was no factual record involving actual victims to properly determine the statutory and constitutional issues.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the Attorney General and a Crown Attorney.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the pleadings were inadequate, as the appellant failed to plead the material facts necessary to support allegations of the absence of reasonable and probable grounds or malice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants, Ferri and Mammoliti, were charged with extortion and theft after removing and demanding payment for the return of approximately 2,000 boxes of bank records from a building Ferri had purchased from the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

After the criminal charges were withdrawn or quashed, the appellants sued the police and Crown attorneys for malicious prosecution, false arrest, negligence, and Charter breaches.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing all claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the police and Crown had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute and whether they acted with malice.

The dismissal of the false arrest and imprisonment claims was upheld as statute-barred.

The Toronto Star made a freedom of information request for data from two police firearms databases, SOURCE and FATE.

The Adjudicator ordered partial disclosure of the SOURCE database but denied access to the FATE database under the law enforcement intelligence exemption.

Both the Ministry and the Star sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision regarding the FATE database but quashed the order disclosing the SOURCE database, finding that the Adjudicator unreasonably interpreted the 'law enforcement matter' exemption.

The Toronto Star made a freedom of information request for data from two police firearms databases, SOURCE and FATE.

The Adjudicator ordered partial disclosure of the SOURCE database but denied access to the FATE database under the law enforcement intelligence exemption.

Both the Ministry and the Star sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision regarding the FATE database but quashed the order disclosing the SOURCE database, finding that the Adjudicator unreasonably interpreted the 'law enforcement matter' exemption.

The applicant, a deaf person, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the failure of the Building Code to require rear window captioning in movie theatres constituted discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal, finding insufficient evidence of a denial of a service and noting that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to amend legislation.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission's gate-keeping decision was not patently unreasonable, as the Tribunal cannot read in provisions to the Building Code to make it comply with the Human Rights Code.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board denying a transfer from a maximum secure facility to a medium secure facility.

The appellant argued the Board erred by refusing to receive an expert report from a forensic psychologist due to late filing, which was caused by legal aid funding delays.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal prevented it from conducting the mandatory inquiry under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, as the report was essential to assessing the appellant's risk and determining the least onerous disposition.

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed an order granting a requester's counsel access to records subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege for the purpose of arguing a judicial review application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that records subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege may only be disclosed where 'absolutely necessary'.

The Court found no such absolute necessity in this case.

The Court also held that while the procedural provisions of the Access Act prohibiting disclosure apply to the Commissioner, courts on judicial review are governed by their own procedural rules but must adopt procedures to protect confidentiality until a substantive decision is made.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the Toronto Police Services Board and others.

The motion judge had found that the plaintiff failed to show any bad faith, mala fides, or recklessness on the part of the Commissioner or his investigator, and dismissed the action on the merits.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding this dispositive of the appeal, and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $3,000.

The appellant hospital appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition transferring the respondent, who was found not criminally responsible for multiple murders and sexual offences, from a maximum security facility to a medium security facility.

The Review Board concluded that the respondent's risk could be managed in medium security.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Review Board erred in law by focusing solely on risk management and failing to holistically apply all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Board failed to consider evidence that the restrictive conditions and lack of vocational therapy at the medium security facility would be detrimental to the respondent's mental health and increase his risk to the public.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had rescinded orders made by a local Medical Officer of Health that prohibited smoking in several hospitality businesses.

The Board found that the Medical Officer of Health exceeded his statutory authority under section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act by issuing blanket, unit-wide orders rather than site-specific ones.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review and awarding costs to the respondent businesses.