William John Manuel

The plaintiff, who was acquitted of manslaughter in a judge-alone trial, sued the Attorney General for malicious prosecution.

The Attorney General had previously attempted to override the plaintiff's election for a judge-alone trial without providing reasons, which the criminal trial judge found to be an abuse of process.

The Attorney General moved to strike the civil claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts establishing that the prosecution was continued without reasonable cause or motivated by malice, noting that overriding a trial election is a non-core element of prosecutorial discretion outside the scope of malicious prosecution.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) order directing it to cease collecting personal information from wine club members and to destroy previously collected information.

The LCBO argued the IPC breached procedural fairness by issuing the order without prior notice that such a remedy was being contemplated.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the IPC failed to provide adequate notice of the potential consequences of the privacy complaint investigation, thereby depriving the LCBO of a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue of remedy.

The IPC's order was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Following the dismissal of the foreign tobacco defendants' jurisdictional appeals, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the appeals.

The appellants argued that costs should be capped at $100,000, asserting that the Crown treated the five appeals as one by filing a common factum.

The Court rejected this argument, finding no $100,000 ceiling exists for costs awards in the Court of Appeal.

Given the complexity, the $50 billion stakes, and the necessity of responding to five separate appeals, the Court fixed the Crown's partial indemnity costs at $237,332.50, apportioned between the BAT and RJR appellants.

The defendants moved for a stay of an action concerning approximately $35 million in reserve funds retained from Casino Rama revenues.

The plaintiff alleged that maintaining the reserves breached limits imposed under a later revenue-sharing agreement, while the defendants argued the dispute arose under an earlier agreement that required arbitration.

The court considered the competence-competence principle and jurisprudence directing courts to defer to arbitration where it is arguable that a dispute falls within an arbitration clause.

Because the dispute arguably arose under the earlier contract incorporating arbitration provisions, the court held that the matter should proceed to arbitration.

The action was therefore stayed pending determination by an arbitrator of whether the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement.

Ontario sued foreign and domestic tobacco manufacturers under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009 to recover health care costs.

Six foreign defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

The foreign defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory claim was analogous to a tort committed in Ontario, establishing a presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's findings that Ontario established a good arguable case and affirmed the costs award.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay, or alternatively, to strike a recent amendment to the application.

The applicants had commenced the application to challenge regulations under the Payday Loans Act, 2008, but delayed advancing it while monitoring a related case and negotiating with government officials.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicants provided an adequate explanation for the delay and the respondents suffered no prejudice.

The court also allowed the amendment to stand, noting the broader public interest issues involved, and appointed a case management judge to prevent further delay.

Eleven children's aid societies brought an application for judicial review challenging the Ministry of Children and Youth Services' decisions regarding their funding allocations for the 2009/2010 fiscal year.

The applicants argued that the Minister breached statutory processes, fettered her discretion by mechanically applying a funding model, exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias, and improperly delegated review authority to Regional Directors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation of public funds is a core policy function not subject to judicial review absent bad faith or improper purpose.

The court also found that the delegation of authority was valid and that there was no apprehension of bias or fettering of discretion.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, and related torts arising from withdrawn murder charges.

The Crown defendants moved under Rule 21.01 to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, as an abuse of process.

The court held that witness immunity protected the police officers for statements connected to prior proceedings and that the officers neither initiated the prosecution nor owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

The pleadings contained bald allegations of malice and collusion without the material facts required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also found the claim barred by a prior consent dismissal involving the Crown and concluded that allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

Tobacco producers commenced a proposed class action alleging that federal and provincial governments failed to enforce tobacco taxation and excise legislation, allowing contraband tobacco markets to flourish and causing economic losses to lawful producers.

The plaintiffs advanced claims in misfeasance in public office and negligence, asserting that public officials deliberately failed to enforce statutory regimes to placate certain communities.

The defendants moved under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the amended statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the pleading failed to allege the essential elements of misfeasance in public office, including deliberate unlawful conduct and bad faith by specific officials.

It further concluded that the statutory schemes governing tobacco regulation did not create a private law duty of care owed to tobacco producers and that recognizing such a duty would improperly subject government policy decisions to tort liability.

The amended statement of claim was struck and the action dismissed.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.

The Crown brought an action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act against several domestic and foreign tobacco companies, claiming $50 billion for health care costs related to tobacco disease.

Six foreign defendants brought motions to set aside service ex juris and stay or dismiss the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Crown had established a good arguable case that the foreign defendants conspired and acted in concert to commit tobacco-related wrongs, establishing a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The applicant sought judicial review of a permit issued by the Minister of Natural Resources under the Endangered Species Act, which allowed for the disturbance of species at risk during the construction of a new bridge and parkway.

The applicant argued the Minister failed to apply the precautionary principle, improperly consulted experts, ignored relevant information, and was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision was a matter of public policy entitled to broad deference, the statutory requirements for consultation and opinion-forming were met, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias given the Minister's political and legislative functions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Natural Resources granting a permit under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 for a highway project.

At the opening of the hearing, the respondents brought a preliminary motion to strike three affidavits filed by the applicant.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, striking two affidavits in their entirety and most of the third, emphasizing that judicial review is generally restricted to the record before the decision-maker.

The court noted that fresh evidence is only admissible in exceptional circumstances, which were not present, and criticized the parties for not resolving the evidentiary record prior to the hearing.

Sierra Club Canada brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to halt demolition and construction activities for the Windsor-Essex Parkway, arguing the work would irreparably harm endangered species despite a permit issued under the Endangered Species Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the project with the permit's mitigation measures.

The respondent's cross-motion to dismiss the judicial review application for delay was adjourned to the panel hearing the application.

Following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The appellant did not seek costs for either the trial or the appeal.

Consequently, the previous trial costs order was set aside, and the court ordered that no costs be awarded for either the trial or the appeal.

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 appellants, commercial fishers on Lake Erie, challenged the regulatory regime under which the provincial Minister of Natural Resources imposed catch quotas for walleye and yellow perch on their licences.

They argued that the federal Fisheries Act and regulations did not validly delegate this authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister fettered her discretion and acted unreasonably by adopting the catch recommendations of the international Lake Erie Committee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Governor in Council validly sub-delegated the authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister's reliance on the Committee's recommendations was both reasonable and not a fettering of discretion.

The respondents sued Ontario in negligence after their dairy herd suffered health problems and low milk production, alleging that asphalt and concrete waste deposited on their farm by the Ministry of Transportation in the 1960s contaminated their well water.

The trial judge found Ontario liable and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and dismissed the action.

The Court held that Ontario did not breach the standard of care because the risk of harm to the cattle from the buried waste was not reasonably foreseeable in the 1960s.

Furthermore, Ontario had no statutory or common law duty to remove the waste or remediate the water, as testing showed the water met the allowable provincial drinking standards.

The appellant, a participant in the provincial Witness Protection Program, sued the government for breach of contract, negligence, and Charter violations after experiencing significant delays in receiving new identity documents and being terminated from the program.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that while the government's administration of the program was flawed and delayed, it had exceeded its financial obligations under the agreement, and the appellant's own conduct justified his termination from the program.

The appellant appealed the striking of her statement of claim against the Crown defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that no facts were pleaded to sustain a claim under s. 3(2) of the Police Services Act, and that the OPP does not have responsibility for policing in Toronto under s. 19 of the Act.

The appellant conceded her claim against the Ontario Civilian Commissioner of Police Services.