Timothy S. B. Danson

The responding parties sought judicial review of a coroner's jury verdict and recommendations regarding a death following a chiropractic neck manipulation.

The application was commenced 10 months after the verdict and remained unperfected nearly seven years later.

The moving party coroner moved to dismiss the application for delay.

The court held that a single judge of the Divisional Court has jurisdiction to dismiss for delay in clear cases.

The court found the delay inordinate, rejected the explanation that the responding parties were waiting for complete transcripts of submissions made in the absence of the jury, and found significant prejudice to the deceased's family and the public interest.

The motion to dismiss for delay was granted.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their action against the respondent.

They argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the Occupiers' Liability Act, improperly excluded them from the courtroom, and that the respondent's jury address was inflammatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury charge, noting the exclusion was on agreement of counsel, and holding that the jury address was not inappropriate.

The applicant, an elite wheelchair athlete, sought judicial review of an arbitral decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport regarding an anti-doping violation.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that the arbitrator derived authority from a private contract rather than a statutory power, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also found the application to be an abuse of process due to a parallel civil action seeking the same relief.

The Toronto Police Association (TPA) brought an application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to conduct a public inquiry under s. 25 of the Police Services Act into various matters, including a dispute between officers at a gas pump.

The Commission had previously conducted a screening review and declined to hold a formal inquiry, but made several recommendations under s. 22(1)(e.2) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision not to investigate the TPA's complaints while recommending an investigation into a related human rights complaint was entirely reasonable and within its broad statutory discretion.

The Court also noted that mandamus was not available as a remedy on the facts of the case.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

With the consent of the parties, and pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and allowed the College to withdraw the allegations without a hearing.

The Toronto Police Association brought an application seeking a declaration that a binding agreement existed to resolve disciplinary charges against officers who wore uniforms to a union rally.

The appellants moved to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the matter fell under the Police Services Act.

The motion judge found the dispute was contractual and within the court's jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the essential character of the dispute involved police discipline and the consequences of that discipline on the officers' careers.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed a finding of liability after the respondent tripped and fell over pipes left on the sidewalk in front of the appellant's house.

The pipes had been left for five days, contrary to the City of Toronto's by-laws for special collection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant breached the standard of care and materially contributed to the injuries was supported by the evidence.

The appellant challenged the jurisdictional and constitutional validity of a City of Toronto by-law requiring restaurant operators to post the results of food premises inspections.

The appellant argued the by-law conflicted with provincial health legislation and infringed freedom of expression under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the city had jurisdiction to enact the by-law under its business licensing powers and that the by-law did not unjustifiably infringe Charter rights.

The appellants, retail employees and corporate retailers, were charged with working in or carrying on a retail business on a holiday contrary to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

They challenged the constitutionality of the 1993 amendments to the Act, arguing it infringed their freedom of religion under s. 2(a) and equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Act's purpose remains the secular one of providing common pause days for retail employees, and that it does not significantly burden religious freedom.

The court also held that any differential treatment was based on occupational status, not an enumerated or analogous ground under s. 15, and therefore did not constitute discrimination.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review seeking to quash or adjourn the commencement date of a coroner's inquest, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent coroner and the family of the deceased sought costs against the applicant and his employer, a ski club.

The court found the claimed costs excessive but ordered the applicant and the ski club to jointly and severally pay fixed costs of $7,500 to the coroner and $2,500 to the family.

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's orders refusing to adjourn an upcoming inquest into a fatal ski accident and initiating an inquiry into a potential conflict of interest by the applicant's counsel.

The applicant also sought to remove the coroner based on a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the adjournment and bias, finding no jurisdictional error or fundamental failure of justice in the coroner's procedural rulings.

However, the court set aside the coroner's order directing the applicant's counsel to disclose information about his retainer, finding the coroner lacked sufficient material to initiate a conflict of interest inquiry on his own motion.

The appellants, who are police officers, brought a defamation action against the Toronto Star regarding articles about systemic racism and racial profiling by the Toronto Police.

The motions judge struck the claim, finding it plain and obvious that the articles could not reasonably be understood to refer to the appellants as individuals.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that defamation is a personal tort and the articles used general language without identifying any particular officer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff's personal injury action was settled before trial, and the trial proceeded solely to determine liability between the two defendants following a motor vehicle accident.

During the jury trial, the trial judge repeatedly intervened during the cross-examination and re-examination of the investigating police officer, expressing strong opinions that the officer had failed to conduct a thorough investigation.

The trial judge reiterated these criticisms in his charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's interventions and expressions of opinion crossed the line, usurped the role of counsel, and created an appearance of unfairness.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant restaurant association challenged the jurisdictional and constitutional validity of a City of Toronto by-law requiring restaurant operators to publicly post the results of food premises inspections (the 'DineSafe' Disclosure Program).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the city had the jurisdiction to pass the by-law under the Municipal Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The court also rejected the applicant's Charter challenges, holding that a corporation cannot invoke section 7, and that the mandatory posting of inspection notices did not infringe freedom of expression under section 2(b) because it did not force the owners to adopt the city's message or prevent them from disavowing it.

The court further held that even if section 2(b) were infringed, the by-law would be saved under section 1.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions made by a coroner presiding over an inquest into a death following a chiropractic neck adjustment.

The coroner had ruled that he lacked authority to remove the family's counsel for professional misconduct and declined to state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Coroners Act does not grant coroners the power to disqualify lawyers for unprofessional conduct, which is a matter for the Law Society.

The Court also found no error in the coroner's exercise of discretion regarding the contempt reference.

The appellant, a senior manager, was convicted of fraud and attempted fraud for engaging his girlfriend to provide recruitment services to his company without authorization.

He appealed his convictions and his sentence of 90 days' intermittent incarceration and a $20,000 fine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding ample evidence of a dishonest act and deprivation, and rejecting the defence of authorization.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court noting the sentence was merciful given the appellant's breach of trust.

The applicants, corporate retailers and their employees, were convicted of carrying on business on a proscribed holiday contrary to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

They sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, challenging the constitutionality of the Act under ss. 2(a) and 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the unique history of the legislation and the evolution of equality law left sufficient uncertainty regarding the Act's validity to warrant consideration by a full panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying him standing at an ongoing inquest.

The coroner found the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements for standing under either the public law or private law tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the coroner's decision was entitled to curial deference and was not unreasonable.

The court emphasized the need to avoid interrupting the ongoing statutory hearing and found no serious error in principle that would justify interference.

The Crown appealed a Divisional Court decision permitting the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters to examine the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the cancellation of the spring bear hunt.

The applicants alleged the Minister failed to exercise independent discretion and was improperly influenced by the Premier and political expediency.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the summonses, holding that the motives for passing a regulation are irrelevant to its validity, and there was no justiciable issue or reasonable evidentiary basis to permit the examinations.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his insurer for statutory accident benefits.

The plaintiff's counsel sent a settlement offer to the insurer's adjuster, which the insurer's counsel accepted.

When the plaintiff refused to proceed with the settlement because costs were to be assessed rather than fixed, the insurer moved for judgment under Rule 49.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the offer was improperly served and the insurer failed to provide a notice under section 9.1 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the technical defect in service did not invalidate the Rule 49 offer, and that section 9.1 does not apply to settlements reached after litigation has commenced.