Timothy S. B. Danson

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.

The appeal concerned whether a statutory accident benefits settlement notice complied with the commuted value disclosure requirement under s. 9.1(2), para. 5 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The court held that a description of the maximum statutory accident benefits available to the insured was not a commuted value of those benefits, and that the notice provided did not satisfy the regulation.

The insured was therefore entitled to rescind the settlement under s. 9.1(4).

The court dismissed the appeal, while clarifying that an insurer may determine commuted value based on the information available if done in good faith and with clear factual assumptions.

The applicants brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside interlocutory orders made by a single judge in a pending judicial review application challenging the cancellation of the spring bear hunt.

The panel allowed the motion in part, permitting the applicants to examine the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources under Rule 39.03 on the narrow issue of whether the Minister exercised independent discretion or was dictated to by the Premier.

The panel upheld the single judge's orders restricting the applicants to four expert witnesses and directing that the respondents' motion to strike portions of affidavits be heard by a single judge prior to the main application.

The corporate appellants, retail businesses, and their employees sought declarations that the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act was unconstitutional, alleging it infringed freedom of religion and equality rights under the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants lacked standing.

The Court found that while there was a serious issue as to the Act's validity and the appellants were directly affected, there were other reasonable and effective ways to bring the issue before the court, as evidenced by their reliance on the evidentiary record of another case.

The Court also held that the appellants could not claim their own religious rights were violated without specific factual evidence.

Multiple appeals and a Crown appeal challenged Ontario's Sunday retail closing regime under division of powers and the Charter.

The Court held the legislation was intra vires provincial authority and that it had a secular common-pause-day purpose, not a religious one.

A majority held the Act infringed the freedom of religion of Saturday-observing retailers by imposing a non-trivial economic burden, but that the infringement was justified under s. 1 because the legislation pursued a pressing social objective and included a constitutionally sufficient exemption scheme.

The s. 7 challenge failed, and no answer was given on s. 15 because it was not yet in force at the relevant time.

The retailer appeals were dismissed and the Crown's appeal against the kosher retailer was allowed.

The appellant brought an action for libel and slander against the respondent.

At trial, the jury found for the respondent on the defence of qualified privilege.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the further appeal, holding that despite questions regarding the alleged perversity of the jury verdict, the jury was properly instructed and the Court was not prepared to interfere with the verdict.