3 total
The court granted an application to remunerate an amicus curiae at an enhanced rate of $150 per hour.
The Criminal Lawyers' Association applied on behalf of Salma Jaffer for court-assessed fees above the legal aid rate of $88.00 per hour for work performed as amicus curiae in a serious sexual offence case.
The defendant was charged with multiple serious sexual offences, had difficulty maintaining solicitor-client relationships, and had questionable fitness.
The court appointed Jaffer as amicus to assist in ensuring the preliminary inquiry proceeded while protecting the defendant's fair trial interests.
The court granted the application and set Jaffer's remuneration at $150 per hour, finding that while the legal aid tariff is a significant factor, it is not conclusive and must be balanced against counsel's experience, the importance and complexity of the assignment, and the broader interests of the administration of justice.
Supplementary reasons awarding costs of lower court motions to the successful defendants.
Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.
The Court of Appeal awarded the successful defendants, Woodhouse, Gerrits, and Ontario, their costs of the motion before the lower court and their motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, in addition to their costs of the appeal.
The plaintiffs and the remaining defendants agreed that no costs would be awarded among them due to divided success.
Misfeasance requires abuse of power, not mere breach of statutory duty.
Appeals from rule 21 motions in an action arising from a fatal police shooting and the subsequent SIU investigation.
The majority held that the tort of misfeasance in public office requires abuse of statutory or administrative power, and that an alleged failure by police officers to co-operate with an SIU investigation under s. 113(9) of the Police Services Act was a breach of duty, not an abuse of power.
The majority struck the misfeasance claim against the officers and the negligent supervision claim against Ontario, but allowed the negligent supervision claim against the police chief to proceed.
The majority also held the Board could not be liable for negligent supervision because the Act confined it to policy functions and precluded operational direction.
A dissent would have permitted the misfeasance and broader negligent supervision claims to proceed.
