Tom Schreiter

The Crown and Ontario First Nations entered into a revenue sharing agreement requiring the Crown to appoint a First Nations representative to the board of directors of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).

When no appointment was made, First Nations sought arbitration.

The Crown and OLG moved to strike the claim, arguing the appointment was protected by Crown prerogative and non-justiciable.

The arbitration panel dismissed the motion and also allowed First Nations to withdraw its claim against OLG.

The Crown and OLG appealed both decisions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Crown prerogative could not be used to avoid a declaration that a contract had been breached, and that OLG was not a necessary party to the arbitration.

The father brought a motion seeking an order compelling the Attorney General to provide state-funded counsel for a child custody trial arising in the context of child protection proceedings.

Applying the test from New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), the court considered whether a refusal of counsel would infringe the applicant’s section 7 Charter rights, whether counsel was necessary for a fair hearing, whether legal aid had been refused after exhaustion of appeals, and whether the applicant lacked the financial means to retain counsel.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate complexity requiring counsel, had previously lost his legal aid certificate due to nondisclosure of assets, and had not provided credible evidence of financial hardship.

The court further found the applicant capable of representing himself and not an indigent litigant.

The request for state-funded counsel was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration that the Director under the Consumer Protection Act improperly kept information about its charge and conviction posted on the Government of Ontario website beyond the period permitted by Ontario Regulation 17/05.

The applicant argued the regulation allowed publication of either charges or convictions for a maximum period of 21–27 months, but not both sequentially.

The court held that the word “or” in the regulation is presumptively inclusive, permitting the Ministry to post information about charges and later convictions separately for their own permitted periods.

Interpreting the provision consistently with the consumer protection purpose of the legislation, the court found that both postings were authorized.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

The appellants, high-stakes gamblers who lost approximately $2.1 million playing roulette, sued the casino operators and the provincial gaming regulator.

They alleged that the casino's practice of removing a 'floating ball' from the roulette wheel and calling a 'no-spin' was an unapproved rule of play, rendering the games illegal under the Criminal Code and entitling them to the return of their losses via unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the floating ball practice was not a rule of play requiring regulatory approval, as it did not impact the fairness or integrity of the game.

Furthermore, even if the games were illegal, the casino operators had a juristic reason for enrichment based on their reasonable reliance on the legality of the games, and the regulator owed no private duty of care to the gamblers.

The appellant mining company appealed an interim injunction that halted its exploration activities and required consultation with the respondent First Nation.

Prior to the appeal, the Mining Amendment Act, 2009 came into force, establishing a new legislative regime for exploration plans and permits involving Aboriginal interests.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the appeal, finding it moot because the rights and obligations of the parties now rested on the new statutory foundation, rendering the propriety of the original injunction an academic exercise.

Following the dismissal of actions and the granting of summary judgment to casino operators and a gaming regulator, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs had claimed approximately $14 million alleging illegality in casino roulette operations and unjust enrichment.

The court held that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale, rejecting claims for substantial indemnity and also declining the plaintiffs’ submission that no costs should be awarded due to alleged illegality.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and appellate guidance on reasonable and proportionate costs, the court fixed reduced lump-sum costs awards.

The casino defendants were awarded $110,000 and the regulator $60,000.

Multiple plaintiffs who were high-limit roulette players alleged that a casino operated illegal roulette games by allowing dealers to remove “floating balls” before they landed in a numbered slot, contrary to approved rules of play under Ontario gaming regulations.

They sought $7.5 million in damages and restitution of approximately $2.1 million lost gambling, asserting tort, contract, statutory misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the actions and enforcing unpaid gambling loans.

The court held that even if the “floating ball” practice was not an approved rule of play and could have rendered certain spins unlawful, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the casino returned all wagers whenever a spin was stopped, meaning there was no enrichment and no corresponding deprivation.

With no viable damages evidence and no triable issues, summary judgment was granted and the defendants also succeeded on their collection counterclaims.

The Superintendent appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking the registration of a private career college.

The Divisional Court had found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the adjudicator's statement that the self-represented principal was 'misleading the Tribunal' and her irrelevant questioning about his possible ties to a terrorist organization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of bias, rejecting the argument that the bias claim was waived, and affirming that a new hearing was the appropriate remedy despite the strength of the Superintendent's case.