Sarah Alexandra McIntyre Kromkamp

The plaintiff brought a motion to establish a discovery plan, seeking production of three disputed categories of documents relating to other properties included in or removed from the Greenbelt Area.

The court dismissed the request for documents relating to 15 sites removed after a 10-year review and submissions regarding 700 properties, finding them irrelevant to the plaintiff's specific allegations.

However, the court ordered the production of documents relating to certain Vaughan lands, as they were relevant to the plaintiff's pleaded allegations of arbitrary and capricious treatment compared to the owners of those lands.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order striking his statement of claim against the Crown without leave to amend.

The claim arose from the appellant's failed attempt to initiate a private prosecution and alleged that Crown employees instructed a court reporter to provide a false transcript and refused to assist with complaints about the transcript.

The motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the test under Rule 21 and that the appellant was attempting to re-litigate issues that should have been addressed in his abandoned appeal.

The Children's Lawyer for Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Information and Privacy Commissioner's order that the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) had custody or control of the Children's Lawyer's litigation records relating to child clients, and therefore such records were subject to freedom of information access requests under FIPPA.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Children's Lawyer operates independently from MAG with respect to her core functions of representing children, and therefore MAG does not have custody or control of child client records.

The court emphasized the importance of confidentiality in the Children's Lawyer-child relationship to the proper functioning of the legal system and the best interests of children.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Environmental Review Tribunal's revocation of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Tribunal had found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's turtle due to increased road mortality.

The Court of Appeal held the Divisional Court erred in its standard of review application, finding the Tribunal's decision on serious and irreversible harm was reasonable despite lacking precise numerical data.

However, the Court of Appeal agreed the Tribunal erred in revoking the approval without allowing the parties to make submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the remedy.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice which held that the Crown could not appeal a judicial stay of proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act, but rather had to proceed by way of certiorari.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Jewitt to find that a judicial stay is tantamount to a dismissal.

Therefore, the Crown has a right of appeal under section 116(1)(b) of the Provincial Offences Act.