Vanessa May Marie Glasser

The plaintiffs sought up to $50 million for alleged negligent misrepresentations made by Ministry officials during the regulatory review of a proposed wind energy project requiring a Renewable Energy Approval.

The court held that the Ministry representatives owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs given their sustained, proponent-facing interactions and knowledge of the economic consequences tied to the feed-in-tariff deadline.

However, the court found that none of the four alleged misrepresentations was actionable: some statements were attributable only to government press releases or regulatory materials, while others were factually and legally correct, including statements about the six-month service standard, merits-based review, and the absence of any Indigenous veto.

The court also rejected preliminary defences based on pleading sufficiency, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and a prior release.

The action was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

This decision addresses the costs of a "Hybrid Motion" brought by Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation against the City of Winnipeg and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

The First Nation sought leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages and clarify the "Headlands Issue" a ruling on a legal issue, and a refusals motion.

The motion had mixed success for all parties.

The First Nation requested substantial indemnity costs of over $200,000, while the defendants sought no costs or partial indemnity of $15,000-$20,000.

The court awarded the First Nation partial indemnity costs of $90,000, payable in the cause, finding no basis for substantial indemnity due to the procedural nature of the motion and the absence of punitive conduct.

The court also noted that principles of reconciliation were not argued on the motion and did not warrant extraordinary costs in this interlocutory context.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Divisional Court decision that dismissed his motion to set aside a prior ruling under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The original application for judicial review sought a mandamus order against the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario regarding pediatric COVID-19 vaccinations, which was quashed for lack of arguable claim and standing.

The Court of Appeal, applying the four-factor test for extending time, found a lengthy delay without cogent explanation and, critically, that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court affirmed that a Rule 2.1 dismissal is appropriate for frivolous and vexatious motions, and that new evidence irrelevant to the fundamental deficiencies of the original application would not alter the outcome.

The motion for an extension of time was denied, and the appeal dismissed.

The defendants requested an extension of time to deliver their amended statements of defence or motion materials in response to the plaintiff's forthcoming amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff opposed the extension for the defence but agreed to an extension for costs submissions.

The court granted the defendants' request, extending all timelines to thirty days for all parties.

The plaintiff First Nation brought a hybrid motion seeking to determine an issue of law before trial, amend its statement of claim to increase damages to $2 billion and add particulars regarding the 'Headlands Issue', and compel answers to questions refused during discovery.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they asserted a new, statute-barred cause of action, lacked a necessary party (Canada), and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion to determine an issue of law, finding the factual record was disputed.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, holding it was not plain and obvious that the claims were statute-barred or doomed to fail without Canada, but required the plaintiff to deliver a technically compliant pleading.

The refusals motion was largely dismissed, with only four questions ordered to be answered.

The self-represented applicant moved to set aside a final panel decision of the Divisional Court that had dismissed his application to halt pediatric COVID-19 vaccinations.

The applicant alleged that newly discovered evidence showed the Chief Medical Officer of Health had an undisclosed conflict of interest involving Pfizer, which amounted to fraud.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the fresh evidence would not affect the core findings that the applicant lacked standing and failed to plead an arguable claim.

The Plaintiffs, investors in a cancelled wind turbine project, brought a motion for further production and discovery against the Defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the government acted arbitrarily and in bad faith by directing the Ministry of Environment (MOE) to refuse a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for their project for political purposes.

The court noted the extensive discovery already undertaken, including voluminous document production and examinations.

Despite the Plaintiffs' suspicions of political interference, the court found no documentary or testimonial evidence to support these claims.

The motion was dismissed, with costs in the cause, as the court determined that the discovery process had yielded all available information.

The self-represented applicants brought a motion to vary or set aside an order quashing their application for judicial review.

The underlying application sought mandamus to compel the Chief Medical Officer of Health to act regarding pediatric COVID-19 vaccines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's conclusions that the applicants failed to plead the necessary statutory conditions precedent and that mandamus is not available to compel the exercise of discretion in a particular way.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, through her litigation guardian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that reversed a certification order for a proposed class action against the Government of Ontario.

The class action alleged negligence in the administration of services for adults with developmental disabilities and a breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred in recharacterizing the negligence claim as impugning core policy decisions and in striking the section 7 Charter claim.

The Court held that the negligence claim concerned operational failures within existing resources, and the section 7 claim alleged psychological harm from the arbitrary administration of waitlists for approved services, which was not foreclosed by existing jurisprudence.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the motion judge's certification order.

The self-represented applicants sought an extension of time to bring a motion to review an order quashing their application for judicial review regarding COVID-19 vaccinations for children.

The applicants had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, noting that the applicants had a timely intention to appeal but took the wrong route, and that the justice of the case favoured allowing them to challenge the summary dismissal of their application.

Ontario brought a motion to adjourn the Stage Three trial of a complex treaty rights claim sine die, pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the appeal of Stage One and Stage Two.

The plaintiffs, interveners, and Canada opposed the motion.

The court applied the test for an adjournment, balancing the interests of the parties and the administration of justice.

The court found that the risk of proceeding was manageable, while the prejudice to the plaintiffs and the administration of justice caused by further delay would be significant.

The motion to adjourn was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Chief Medical Officer of Health to halt the pediatric COVID-19 vaccination program in Ontario.

The respondent moved to quash the application for judicial review.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding it plain and obvious that the application could not succeed because the Chief Medical Officer of Health's authority to issue directives is discretionary and conditional on forming specific opinions, which were not pleaded.

The court also found that the applicants lacked public interest standing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim arising from an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation.

The claimants had made a settlement offer in February 2021, to which the Ministry had not yet responded.

The Ministry indicated its response would be issued imminently.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to allow time for the Ministry's response and to consider potential Tribunal-led mediation.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Joel Breault, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Croll J. dated September 24, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 for the Landry plaintiffs and $2,500 for the Davies defendants, payable by the moving parties.

The proposed intervenor, Shoal Lake #40 First Nation, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party or friend of the court in an action for damages brought by Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation against the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Ontario.

The underlying action sought compensation for the taking of water from Shoal Lake pursuant to a 1913 Order in Council.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had no direct interest in the plaintiff's specific claim for damages, that its participation would cause delay, and that it was free to commence its own action for compensation.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a 2017 expropriation of part of the claimants' lands for the realignment of Highway 6.

The claimants sought the Ministry's final design plans and the scheduling of a second CMC.

The Ministry indicated it was awaiting reports from its planner and appraiser.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for February 22, 2022, and directed the Ministry to provide status updates on the final design plans, construction schedule, and expert reports.