S. Zachary Green

The moving parties brought a motion to reopen their appeal after the Ontario government passed legislation repealing the statutory provisions at issue.

The moving parties argued that the repeal was an attempt to evade constitutional scrutiny and render the remitted rehearing moot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that it was premature to conclude the remitted issues were moot, as the application judge retains discretion to hear the matter.

The Court emphasized that the application judge has the institutional advantage to make the necessary factual findings on the expanded Charter claims.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought an urgent anticipatory injunction to ban an Al Quds Day protest rally in Toronto, or alternatively, an order enjoining participants from violating the Criminal Code and committing torts.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Attorney General failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the rally would result in criminality or a public nuisance.

The court held that a blanket ban on the assembly would be a disproportionate infringement of the participants' freedom of peaceful assembly under s. 2(c) of the Charter.

The court also declined to grant the alternative relief, noting that police do not require a court order to enforce the criminal law.

The moving parties sought a stay of a new Ontario government policy restricting international medical graduates from participating in the first iteration of the medical residency matching process (CaRMS) unless they attended high school in Ontario for two years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying application for judicial review.

The court held that the policy was not an exercise of a specific statutory power under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, nor was certiorari available against the Crown in these circumstances.

The inclusion of Charter arguments did not expand the court's statutory jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered when a gender affirming surgery, specifically a vaginoplasty without penectomy, qualifies as an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP).

The court held that vaginoplasty is a specifically listed insured service in the Schedule of Benefits, regardless of whether it is accompanied by a penectomy, and that the exclusion for experimental procedures does not apply to specifically listed services.

The appeal by the General Manager of OHIP was dismissed.

This decision grants an interlocutory injunction exempting all existing supervised consumption sites (SCSs) in Ontario from the operation of section 2 of the Community Care and Recovery Act, 2024, pending a final decision on the merits.

The court finds that the three-part test for injunctive relief is met: there is a serious issue to be tried regarding Charter rights, irreparable harm would result from SCS closures, and the balance of convenience favours the applicants.

The ruling details the public health crisis of opioid use, the role of SCSs in harm reduction, and the disproportionate impact of closures on marginalized populations.

The applicant, Minotar Holdings Inc., sought a declaration that certain sections of the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 and the Greenbelt Act, 2005 violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by legislating a judicial outcome and depriving the Superior Court of its jurisdiction.

The court found that the amendments did not violate the Constitution, as the legislature has the authority to extinguish causes of action and define land use boundaries, provided it uses clear and explicit statutory language.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 (ROPA) violates section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and whether a public trust doctrine exists in Canadian law.

The appellant, Ontario Place Protectors, challenged the constitutionality of ROPA, arguing it insulated state action from judicial scrutiny and breached public trust.

The Court found the application judge erred in denying public interest standing but held that ROPA does not contravene section 96, as it preserves judicial review and does not usurp the core jurisdiction of the superior courts.

The Court also found no basis for a public trust doctrine in Canadian law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that his 'ethical veganism' was not a creed under the Human Rights Code.

Prior to the decision, the parties had settled the underlying complaints, withdrawing them and agreeing not to refile, though preserving the right to seek judicial review on the preliminary issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of mootness, finding no live controversy remained between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case.

The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly challenged the constitutionality of Bill 7, which allows hospitals to transition alternate level of care patients to long-term care homes without their consent.

The applicants argued the legislation violates sections 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by forcing patients to move or pay a daily fee.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no violation of Charter rights.

The court concluded that the legislation is a constitutional measure designed to manage scarce hospital resources.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The parties settled the costs of the appeal, agreeing that the respondent would pay the appellants an all-inclusive amount of $75,000.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by seven youth challenging the constitutionality of Ontario's greenhouse gas emission reduction target and plan.

The application judge had dismissed their claim, characterizing it as seeking positive rights.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error, clarifying that the case concerned whether Ontario's voluntarily assumed statutory obligation to combat climate change was Charter compliant under ss. 7 (life, liberty, security of the person) and 15 (equality).

The matter was remitted for a new hearing to determine if the Target and Plan violated the Charter.

The applicant challenged provisions of the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 (ROPA), arguing that s. 17(2) violated s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by impermissibly removing superior court jurisdiction and access to remedies, and that other sections (ss. 9, 10, 11, 17(2)) breached public trust.

The court dismissed the application, finding that ROPA did not preclude judicial review and that the specific immunity granted was within legislative authority and did not "maim" the superior courts' core jurisdiction.

The court also rejected the public trust doctrine as a basis for striking down legislation or for a declaration without practical utility, and found the applicant lacked sufficient evidence for public interest standing.

The applicant, a Member of Provincial Parliament, sought judicial review of a censure decision by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario following her social media posts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The respondents moved to strike the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, holding that the censure and the motion leading to it fell squarely within the established categories of parliamentary privilege, specifically the control over debates and proceedings and the disciplinary authority over members.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter, even on Charter grounds.

The applicant, Fair Change, brought a constitutional challenge against sections 2, 3, and 5 of the Safe Streets Act, 1999, arguing they violate several Charter rights.

The court granted Fair Change public interest standing.

The court found that the deeming provisions in paragraphs 2(3)2 to 6 of the Act violate the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b), and are not saved by s. 1.

The court also found that the blanket prohibitions on solicitation in certain places under clauses 3(2)(a) to (e) violate freedom of expression and are not minimally impairing, thus not saved by s. 1.

However, the court upheld the prohibition on aggressive solicitation in s. 2(2) and the prohibition on squeegeeing in s. 3(2)(f) as justified limits on freedom of expression.

The court dismissed the challenges under ss. 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The unconstitutional provisions were declared of no force and effect.

Egale Canada brought an unopposed motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning whether vaginoplasty without penectomy is an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that Egale has relevant expertise regarding the systemic disadvantages faced by trans and nonbinary individuals in accessing gender-affirming care and would make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice or undue delay.

This was a motion brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario for security for costs against William Adamson Skelly and Adamson Barbecue Limited.

The court applied the two-step analysis under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It found that Mr. Skelly was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and Adamson Barbecue Limited had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The applicants failed to establish impecuniosity or that the order would be unjust.

The court also noted the low likelihood of success for the applicants' underlying constitutional challenge to the Reopening Ontario Act and related regulations, which were spent or revoked.

The motion for security for costs was granted in the amount of $30,000, and motion costs of $2,000 were awarded to Ontario.

The applicants, who were unsuccessful in their constitutional challenge regarding Ontario's response to climate change, and the respondent, who successfully defended the application, both sought costs.

The respondent sought $45,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicants sought $96,999.79 or, alternatively, no costs.

The court applied the factors for public interest litigation and declined to award costs to the successful respondent, noting the applicants had no pecuniary interest, the issues were of existential public importance, and the respondent had superior capacity to bear costs.

The court also declined to award costs to the unsuccessful applicants, finding this was not one of the rare cases justifying such an award.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This appeal concerned a proposed class action by inmates and their families against Bell Canada and the Ontario government regarding allegedly unreasonable and unconscionable collect call rates from correctional facilities.

The motion judge had dismissed claims for an ultra vires tax and a Telecommunications Act breach, and permanently stayed other claims (unjust enrichment, consumer protection, unconscionable contracts, breach of fiduciary duty), deferring to the CRTC's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the ultra vires tax claim, finding the commissions paid to Ontario were proprietary/contractual charges, not taxes.

However, the Court substituted the permanent stay with a temporary stay for the remaining claims.

This was to allow the CRTC to first determine whether it had forborne from regulating these specific rates and, if not, to adjudicate their reasonableness, ensuring access to justice for the appellants if the CRTC declined jurisdiction.

The applicants, seven young Ontarians, brought an application challenging Ontario's greenhouse gas reduction target (the "Target") set under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018.

They argued that the Target, which aims to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, is unconstitutional and violates their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The court found that the issues were justiciable, as they involved a challenge to specific state action and legislation.

However, the court dismissed the application, concluding that while climate change poses a severe threat and disproportionately impacts youth, the Target itself does not violate the Charter.

The court held that section 7 does not impose positive obligations on the state to enact more stringent environmental policies, and the Target is not arbitrary or grossly disproportionate.

Furthermore, the court found no section 15 violation, as the disproportionate impacts are caused by climate change itself, not the impugned legislation, and the Charter does not impose a positive obligation to remedy social inequalities.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal regarding the constitutionality of s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (CLPA).

This section imposes a leave requirement for tort claims against the Crown alleging misfeasance in public office or bad faith, limiting discovery.

The application judge had declared s. 17 unconstitutional, finding it violated s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by preventing "meaningful access" to superior courts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 17 is a valid exercise of provincial legislative authority under s. 92(14) and does not infringe s. 96.

The court clarified that s. 96 protects the institutional core jurisdiction of superior courts, not an individual right of access, and that procedural changes making claims more difficult do not equate to an infringement of core jurisdiction.