Sara Blake

The Director appealed an order of the Environmental Review Tribunal awarding costs to the respondents after the Director revoked the underlying environmental orders.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The Environmental Protection Act does not confer costs jurisdiction, and the Tribunal could not rely on section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because it had not enacted rules regarding costs that complied with the requirements of section 17.1(2)(b).

The Ministry of Transportation and the Consulting Engineers of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order.

The Commissioner had ordered the disclosure of records containing the Ministry's evaluations and scores of consultants who submitted tenders for highway construction projects.

The appellants argued the records were exempt under sections 13, 17, and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's findings that the scores did not constitute 'advice or recommendations' under section 13, and that there was insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable expectation of harm under sections 17 and 18.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant challenged the Minister's decision to close the Land Registry and Land Titles offices in Welland and relocate them to St. Catharines.

The applicant argued the Minister lacked the statutory authority to enact the regulations carrying out the closures.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that amendments to the Registry Act and provisions of the Land Titles Act clearly authorized the Minister to consolidate the offices within the upper-tier municipality of Niagara.

The Ministry of the Attorney General appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding two orders by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The orders required the disclosure of the total amounts of legal fees paid by the Ministry to lawyers acting for intervenors and for Paul Bernardo on his criminal appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the disclosure of the total fee amounts would not reveal any privileged solicitor-client communications.

The Court also held that the disclosure did not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The Commission had directed the applicant Chief of Police to initiate a disciplinary hearing against a police constable for alleged neglect of duty during a sudden death investigation.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application for judicial review was premature as the Commission's decision merely required a hearing and was not a final determination of rights.

The court emphasized the need to avoid fragmenting administrative proceedings.

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed an order of the Divisional Court that upheld a decision by Blair J. regarding the control of court process and procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal found that Blair J.'s order was discretionary and made within his jurisdiction.

Finding no basis to interfere with the order, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the Requester.

In an addendum to its earlier reasons dismissing the appellant's appeal and allowing the respondent Conservation Authority's cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed the respondent Crown's cross-appeal regarding trial costs.

The trial judge had declined to award the successful Crown its costs because it failed to communicate its change in position regarding a land exchange, which could have avoided the appellant's damages.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and dismissed the Crown's cross-appeal on costs.

The plaintiff, a private utility with an exclusive electricity supply agreement with the Town of Gananoque, sued the Crown for negligence, wrongful expropriation, and misfeasance in a public office following the deregulation of Ontario's electricity market.

The Crown moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge and Divisional Court allowed all three claims to proceed.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal struck out the negligence and wrongful expropriation claims, finding no duty of care owed to the plaintiff and no appropriation of property.

However, the Court allowed the claim for misfeasance in a public office to proceed, as it was adequately pleaded.

The Ministry of the Attorney General brought an application for judicial review regarding a freedom of information request.

During the hearing, the Divisional Court panel asked counsel whether the requester should be permitted to bring an application under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act that would breach a confidentiality undertaking previously given by his lawyer during negotiations.

The court adjourned the application to allow counsel time to prepare an answer to this pivotal question.

The appellant sued the Crown and the Conservation Authority for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation arising from an aborted land exchange.

The trial judge dismissed the contract claim but found the Conservation Authority liable for negligent misrepresentation, awarding reduced damages due to a failure to mitigate.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on damages and allowed the Conservation Authority's cross-appeal, finding that the appellant had not detrimentally relied on the misrepresentation and that the failure of a related sale transaction was not caused by the misrepresentation.

The applicants sought judicial review of the investigative process leading to charges by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

On a motion to determine who must file the record under Rule 68.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the Committee was not acting as a court or tribunal in its investigative function.

Therefore, Rule 68.04(1)(b) applied, requiring the applicants to prepare and file the record.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of two orders by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of the total amounts paid by the Ministry for court-ordered legal representation of certain individuals in criminal proceedings.

The Ministry argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege and the protection of personal privacy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner was correct in determining that the aggregate fee amounts were neutral information not protected by solicitor-client privilege, and that the Commissioner's decision that the disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy was reasonable.

The Ministry of Transportation and the Consulting Engineers of Ontario sought judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of evaluation scores awarded to consulting engineering firms bidding on highway construction projects.

The applicants argued the scores were exempt under sections 13, 17, and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Commissioner's interpretation and application of the exemptions were reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The respondents brought a motion to strike out a notice of intervention filed by the Attorney General of Ontario in an appeal from a judicial review decision.

The respondents argued that section 9(4) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act only grants the Attorney General the right to intervene in the original application, not on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that section 9(4) is broad enough to encompass appeals, allowing the Attorney General to intervene as of right to fulfill their role as guardian of the public interest.

The Minister of Health and Long Term Care appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an order by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner to produce records relating to physician remuneration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the phrase 'labour relations' in s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is not restricted to employer/employee relationships.

The court held that the relationship between the government and physicians, including the work of the Physician Services Committee, falls within 'labour relations', exempting the requested records from the Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a proposed landfill expansion.

The core issue was the interpretation of section 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, specifically whether the phrase 'other than' meant 'in addition to' or 'different from' the standard requirements.

The Divisional Court held that 'other than' means 'in addition to', requiring the proponent to fulfill the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements listed in section 6.1(2).

The Minister's decision approving the Terms of Reference was quashed.

The Minister of Health and Long Term Care appealed a decision of the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding the disclosure of records of the Physician Services Committee.

The Minister argued the records were exempt under the 'labour relations' provision in s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commissioner that 'labour relations' refers to the collective relationship between an employer and its employees.

Since members of the Ontario Medical Association are not employees of the Ministry, the exemption did not apply.

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 appellant, having been successful in obtaining the dismissal of the motion by the Attorney General to quash the stated case, in obtaining leave to appeal, and on the appeal itself, sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellant payable by the Attorney General on a partial indemnity basis.

Recognizing that the central issue was addressed three times and was not unduly complex, the court fixed a global amount of $18,000 for fees and $5,000 for disbursements.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring that the sale of Hydro One shares by the Crown contravened s. 48(1) of the Electricity Act.

Before the appeal was heard, the government withdrew the public offering and enacted new legislation repealing s. 48(1) and expressly authorizing the sale of the shares.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the legal and factual foundation of the dispute had disappeared and that the circumstances did not justify an exception to the general rule against hearing moot appeals.