Sarah Valair

The applicant, a reserve retailer, sought judicial review of a First Nation Council's decision to allocate tax-exempt cigarettes to another business, arguing the business was not located on the reserve.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing.

The applicant failed to show a causal relationship between the alleged prejudice and the challenged action, and the issue raised was not a serious justiciable issue affecting the public interest.

The moving party brought a motion to strike an expert affidavit filed by the respondents in an Application for Judicial Review regarding the issuance of a stone quarry licence.

The moving party argued the affidavit was inadmissible as it was not before the decision-maker.

The respondents argued the evidence was necessary to determine if the Crown met its duty to consult and accommodate.

The court deferred the issue, ordering that the admissibility of the affidavit be determined by the full panel hearing the Application to avoid jeopardizing the scheduled hearing dates.

The representative plaintiff in a class action regarding pension benefits for employees transferred to Community Care Access Centres moved for settlement approval, fee approval, and an amendment to the class definition.

The plaintiff alleged the government breached a 'no loss' commitment regarding pension benefits.

The court approved the amendment to the class definition to include certain union members.

The court also approved the settlement of $752,500, providing $2,500 per class member, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks, including a limitation period defence.

Class counsel fees up to $75,000 were also approved.

A solicitor sought an order to discharge a mortgage and rectify the Land Titles Parcel Register following a property sale.

An earlier mortgage, inadvertently deleted from title, complicated the transaction.

The solicitor relied on the Parcel Register and a payout statement from the mortgagee, which was mistakenly applied to the deleted mortgage, leaving the intended mortgage undischarged.

The court applied the doctrine of estoppel, finding that the mortgagee's representation in the payout statement, coupled with the solicitor's reasonable reliance, warranted the discharge of the mortgage and rectification of the register.

Concurrently, the mortgagee's cross-motion for judgment against the vendor on the underlying debt was granted, as the vendor was aware of the outstanding obligation and could not reasonably claim estoppel regarding the debt itself.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending his driver’s licence under the Highway Traffic Act after he failed to complete required remedial driving lessons and a reassessment following concerns about his driving record and attention-related issues.

The court first granted leave under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act due to urgency, finding that the suspension threatened the applicant’s livelihood as a self‑employed tow truck driver and delay before the Divisional Court could cause a failure of justice.

On the merits, the court held that the statutory scheme permitted the Deputy Registrar to require remedial lessons and a further driving assessment.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the court found the suspension justified given the applicant’s extensive accident history, the occupational therapist’s recommendations, and his withdrawal from the remedial program.

Technical defects in the Notice of Suspension, including reference to a repealed subsection, did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The applicant sought urgent judicial review of a government decision denying funding under the Second Career program for a proposed Master’s degree in public administration.

The respondent argued the matter was not urgent and that the decision was neither reviewable nor unreasonable.

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that proceeding in the Divisional Court would cause a failure of justice as required under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court further found that the government program was a discretionary public funding initiative not subject to judicial review absent a Charter or fundamental rights violation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant corporation sought orders under the Securities Act and the Business Corporations Act to restrict certain shareholders from voting shares allegedly acquired in breach of early warning reporting requirements, to declare that a shareholder rights plan “flip‑in event” had occurred, and to invalidate a dissident proxy solicitation ahead of an annual general meeting.

The court declined to address the alleged early warning breach because the matter was already the subject of an ongoing Ontario Securities Commission investigation and had previously been withdrawn from related litigation.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court held that the discretionary remedy of prohibiting voting rights would not be appropriate given the circumstances and absence of harm to the market or shareholders.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents acted jointly or in concert in organizing the proxy solicitation or that the circular was misleading under applicable securities and corporate law regulations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The parties resolved part of the matter through minutes of settlement prior to the hearing.

At the hearing, the parties entered into discussions with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer and resolved the remaining issues.

The Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust in accordance with the settlement and terminated the matter.