Timothy S. B. Danson

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 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 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.