4 total
Court refused to destroy unlawfully seized evidence or bar its use in discipline proceedings.
A physician applied under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for remedies following an unlawful police search of his home computer that uncovered child pornography.
The criminal charges were withdrawn due to an invalid search warrant, but the physician’s professional regulator obtained a copy of the hard drive and commenced disciplinary proceedings.
The applicant sought orders requiring destruction of the copied hard drive and prohibiting the regulator from relying on the evidence in the discipline hearing.
The court assumed serious Charter breaches, including possible bad faith by police, but held that neither destruction nor prohibition was appropriate or just in the circumstances.
The Discipline Committee was best positioned to determine the admissibility of the evidence under s. 24(2) in the administrative proceeding.
Appeal dismissed with costs as the court agreed entirely with the motion judge's reasons.
The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal agreed entirely with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $1,000.
Judicial review dismissed; aggregate legal fees not protected by solicitor-client privilege where disclosure reveals no communications.
The Ministry of the Attorney General sought judicial review of two orders by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of total dollar figures for legal services rendered to other ministries.
The Ministry argued the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege under s. 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the IPC correctly applied the rebuttable presumption of privilege test from Maranda v. Richer and reasonably concluded the presumption was rebutted because disclosing the aggregate amounts would not reveal privileged communications.
Judicial review of human rights complaint regarding law school admissions and LSAT scores dismissed.
The applicant, an African-Canadian male, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his complaint against the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to a board of inquiry.
The applicant alleged that the law school's reliance on LSAT scores for admission constituted systemic discrimination against African-Canadians.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable, as it had considered extensive evidence showing the law school used a holistic admissions policy rather than strict numerical cut-offs.
The court also dismissed claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.
