Thomas Rounthwaite Lipton

The applicant, an American web-based videoconference provider, sought judicial review of Ontario Health's refusal to verify its platform as a 'Verified Virtual Visit Solution', which prevented Ontario physicians from billing OHIP for services rendered using the platform.

Ontario Health required the applicant to store data in Canada, asserting the platform collected personal health information.

The Divisional Court held that the data residency requirement and the related OHIP payment rule were not ultra vires.

While the court found Ontario Health's conclusion that the applicant collected personal health information to be unreasonable, it ultimately dismissed the application because the applicant failed to meet other mandatory technical and privacy assessment requirements.

The applicant sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of the Ministry of Mines' decision to add two other First Nations to consultation lists for mining projects on its traditional territory.

The applicant opposed adding the other First Nations as parties to the proceeding.

The court held that the entitlement of the other First Nations to participate as parties must be resolved before hearing the motion for an extension of time, as their rights were directly implicated by the proposed application.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for an interim stay pending an application for judicial review.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of the motion.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, ordering that the interim interim stay remain in place until the motion is heard, the application is decided, or the parties consent to lift it.

Cat Lake First Nation brought an urgent motion for an interim interim stay of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry's authorization allowing First Mining Gold Corporation to construct an 18 km winter road.

The First Nation argued the authorization was granted without adequate consultation and would irreparably harm their Aboriginal rights.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to constitutional rights, and that the balance of convenience favoured the First Nation.

The court granted the interim interim stay pending the full hearing of the motion and waived the requirement for an undertaking as to damages.

Batchewana First Nation sought to be joined as a necessary party plaintiff or, alternatively, for leave to intervene as an added party plaintiff in the Robinson Superior Treaty action, which concerns claims for augmented annuities.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that Batchewana, a beneficiary of the Robinson Huron Treaty, was not a necessary party to the Superior action, as its claim for augmented annuities based on "just claims" to lands within the Superior Territory was inconsistent with its prior position in the Huron action and did not directly relate to the Superior Treaty's interpretation or compensation.

The court also found that Batchewana did not meet the criteria for intervention and that its proposed intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice to the complex, multi-stage litigation.

Namaygoosisagagun Ojibway Nation sought leave to intervene in the Robinson Superior Treaty action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs and Gull Bay First Nation opposed the intervention, arguing that Namaygoosisagagun was not a recognized band and lacked a collective interest.

The Crown defendants consented with provisos to prevent litigation of Namaygoosisagagun's band status or s. 35 rights within this proceeding.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding that Namaygoosisagagun had a contingent collective interest that met the low threshold for intervention, but imposed strict conditions prohibiting them from seeking to prove or determine issues related to their band status, s. 35 rights, or beneficiary status under the Treaty, and from making submissions conflicting with the plaintiffs' position on distribution.

Teme-Augama Anishnabai and Temagami First Nation (TAA) sought leave to intervene as added party plaintiffs in the Restoule action, a case concerning the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

While the original plaintiffs and Canada consented to the intervention, Ontario opposed a specific condition that would allow TAA to seek leave to file reply reports to Ontario's reports, even if TAA had not previously filed principal reports.

TAA argued this condition was necessary due to unique interests stemming from a prior Supreme Court decision and ongoing negotiations regarding their s. 35 rights.

The court granted the intervention with the disputed condition, finding Ontario's perceived risk of case splitting speculative and emphasizing the potential prejudice to TAA if denied the ability to respond to evidence on critical treaty boundary issues.

The moving First Nation sought interlocutory relief to restrain mining exploration activities within a culturally and spiritually significant area of its traditional territory and to prevent approval of a separate exploration permit application.

The court held that interlocutory declaratory relief against the Crown and the Director was barred by statute, and that relief against another prospector was premature while his permit application remained on temporary hold.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework in the context of asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights and the Crown’s duty to consult, the court found serious issues respecting meaningful consultation and potential infringement of s. 35 rights, irreparable harm to sacred, burial, harvesting, and cultural sites, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation of the status quo.

An interim injunction was granted against the permit-holder companies, and the moving party was relieved from the usual undertaking as to damages.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay the decision of Sweeny R.S.J. The Divisional Court directed the moving parties to file their materials electronically and advised that motions for leave to appeal are considered in writing under Rule 62.02.

After reviewing the moving parties' materials without requiring responding materials, the panel dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, rendering the motion for a stay moot.

No costs were ordered.

The plaintiffs, including Grand Chief Wabiska Mukwa and the Manary family, launched a wide-ranging action against various defendants, including provincial and federal governments, their agents, and Farm Credit Canada (FCC), raising land claims, Indigenous rights, and challenging mortgages.

The defendants brought multiple motions: two Rule 2.1 requests to dismiss the claims as frivolous/vexatious, a Rule 21 motion to strike claims against counsel for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and FCC's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for mortgage enforcement.

The plaintiffs also brought a recusal motion against the presiding judge.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' recusal motion, found the plaintiffs' claims to be "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA) and non-justiciable, dismissed all plaintiffs' claims against all defendants under Rule 2.1 and Rule 21, and granted FCC's summary judgment motion for payment on the mortgages and possession of the properties.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, claiming to represent the Kinakwii Nation, sought to stop the enforcement of a mortgage by Farm Credit Canada by asserting Indigenous rights over the mortgaged land.

The defendants sought to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The plaintiff requested an urgent case conference to schedule a motion to adjourn the upcoming Rule 2.1 review and summary judgment motion, citing the need to examine the Chief Justice of Canada and the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court refused to schedule the motion, noting that Rule 2.1 reviews are not evidentiary hearings and that the plaintiff's tactics resembled 'freeman on the land' arguments.

The court stayed the plaintiff's proposed motion pending a Rule 2.1.02 review.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a reference question regarding the constitutionality of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, Part 5 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

The Act establishes a federal carbon pricing scheme applicable to provinces that have not adopted sufficiently stringent carbon pricing mechanisms.

The majority held that the Act is constitutional under the national concern branch of the Peace, Order, and Good Government power, as establishing minimum national standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a matter of national concern.

The fuel charge and excess emissions charge were found to be valid regulatory charges, not taxes.

Justice Huscroft dissented, arguing that the Act improperly expands federal jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions, which are generated by virtually all provincial activities.

The court dismissed the applicant's proceeding under Rule 2.1 and subsequently addressed the respondent's request for costs.

Given the applicant's history of vexatious litigation seeking the same relief, including multiple prior Rule 2.1 dismissals and a struck appeal, the court deemed the current proceeding vexatious.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis to emphasize the consequences of frivolous or vexatious legal actions and to prevent abuse of process.

The applicant sought compensation from the Province of Ontario for alleged violations of his equality rights under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, claiming systemic racism in prior unsuccessful litigation spanning 31 years and seeking over $100 million.

The respondent requested the court consider dismissing the application under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application plainly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the claims had been repeatedly litigated and dismissed, and that judicial immunity bars claims for compensation against judges for their decisions.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's fee waiver for this and future similar proceedings was revoked.

This decision addresses motions for leave to intervene and to file records in a constitutional reference concerning the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to twelve parties, including three Attorneys General as of right and nine additional parties seeking discretionary leave.

The judge declined to grant leave to one individual applicant.

The decision also addresses the scope of factums, oral argument time allocation, and the relaxed approach to supplementing the record in constitutional references as a court of first instance.

The third party moved to stay a third party claim on the basis of a forum selection clause in a guarantee agreement governed by German law that designated the courts of Hannover, Germany as the competent forum.

The defendants argued the claim should proceed in Ontario alongside the main action concerning breaches of warranty under a share purchase agreement.

Applying the “strong cause” test from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court held that forum selection clauses in international commercial contracts are presumptively enforceable unless exceptional circumstances justify departure.

The defendants failed to demonstrate such circumstances, as the possibility that witnesses and related litigation were located in Ontario was reasonably contemplated when the parties agreed to the clause.

The third party claim was stayed in favour of the Hannover courts.