Zachary Louis Albert Green

This endorsement addresses procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a Divisional Court decision dismissing Adam Knauff’s application for judicial review of decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The moving party seeks clarification of the test for leave to appeal, referencing recent Court of Appeal decisions, and requested a five-judge panel.

The Court directs that the motion for leave to appeal will be heard orally, and sets timelines and procedures for intervention motions.

The appellant, OHIP, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which granted the respondent funding for a vaginoplasty without penectomy in Texas.

OHIP argued the procedure was not a specifically listed insured service and was experimental.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the plain reading of the Schedule of Benefits lists vaginoplasty and penectomy as separate procedures, and that interpreting the schedule to require a penectomy would be inconsistent with the WPATH Standards of Care and Charter values.

The court also declined to allow OHIP to raise a new argument on appeal regarding out-of-country funding criteria.

The applicant brought an application in the Divisional Court.

On consent, the application was discontinued without costs so that the applicant could bring its proposed proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice.

The order was made without prejudice to the parties' rights to contest the validity of the proposed claim.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against Ontario for the early cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot Program.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the certification judge erred by engaging in a merits-based analysis of the breach of contract claim rather than applying the 'plain and obvious' test under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the negligence, breach of undertaking, and Charter s. 7 claims, finding that the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision immune from negligence liability and that the Charter claim failed to plead the requisite principles of fundamental justice.

This endorsement addresses motions by the Tamil Rights Group (TRG) and the Tamil Coalition (National Council of Canadian Tamils, Canadian Tamil Academy, Canadian Tamil Youth Alliance) to intervene as parties or friends of the court in two joined applications.

The original applicants are challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, alleging it is ultra vires and violates Charter rights.

The court granted intervener status as parties to TRG and the Tamil Coalition, finding their contributions useful for a balanced factual record, particularly given the applicants' factual assertions about the Act's basis.

The court imposed specific limitations on the interveners' participation to avoid undue delay or prejudice.

In a proposed class action regarding the rates charged for collect calls made by prisoners in Ontario correctional facilities, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by an employee of the defendant telecommunications company.

The plaintiffs argued the affiant was improperly giving expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the affiant was providing factual evidence regarding the regulatory framework and the operation of the telephone system, not expert opinion.

The applicant nurses' union sought judicial review of two directives issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health regarding COVID-19 infection control and the use of N95 respirators.

The applicants argued the directives failed to account for aerosol and asymptomatic transmission and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the directives were reasonable as they expressly incorporated the precautionary principle and permitted nurses to access N95 respirators based on their professional judgment.

Following the release of its decision allowing the Crown's appeal and setting aside a class action certification order, the Divisional Court entertained post-decision submissions from the respondent based on two new Court of Appeal decisions regarding state liability in negligence.

The court concluded that the new decisions applied settled law and did not alter its previous reasoning.

The court amended its previous disposition to clarify that while the appeal is allowed and the certification order is set aside, the underlying action is not dismissed, leaving that issue for the parties to address below.

The applicants, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others, brought an application against the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application, with reasons to follow.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

Five organizations brought motions to intervene in an application challenging the constitutionality of the Safe Streets Act.

The applicant consented and the respondent did not oppose.

The court applied the test for intervention under Rule 13.02 and found that all five proposed intervenors—the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Aboriginal Legal Services, Justice for Children and Youth, the Income Security Advocacy Centre, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association—met the criteria.

Each organization demonstrated special expertise, a real and substantial interest in the proceedings, and the ability to provide an important and distinct perspective.

The motions to intervene were granted.

The plaintiff, acting as litigation guardian for his developmentally disabled daughter, brought a proposed class action against Ontario alleging negligence and section 7 Charter violations regarding the administration of waitlists for adult developmental services.

The motion judge certified the negligence and Charter claims.

Ontario appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court unanimously allowed the appeal regarding the Charter claims, finding no positive obligation on the state to provide social assistance.

A majority of the court also allowed the appeal regarding the negligence claims, holding that the administration of the benefits program is a core policy decision protected by Crown immunity.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The plaintiffs, a group of affiliated wine manufacturers and retailers, brought an action against the LCBO, the AGCO, and the Crown challenging the 'Made Policy', which regulates where wineries can sell their products.

The parties brought six competing motions, including motions to strike pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and a motion regarding the late disclosure of a tolling agreement between the defendants.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' pleadings over the tolling agreement, finding it did not alter the expected adversarial landscape.

The court struck significant portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim against the LCBO and AGCO, particularly allegations relating to pre-2001 conduct that had been settled in prior litigation, and claims for intentional interference with economic relations.

The Crown's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against it.

The AGCO's and the plaintiffs' respective motions for summary judgment were dismissed, as the complex factual matrix and allegations of bad faith required a trial.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for damages resulting from the early termination of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of undertaking, negligence, breach of public law duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the relationship was not contractual, the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision protected by common law and statutory immunity, and there is no constitutional right to the continuation of a government program.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's Federal Carbon Tax Transparency Act (FCTTA) and its accompanying regulation, O. Reg. 275/19, which mandated gasoline retailers to display a specific sticker on gas pumps.

The CCLA argued this requirement constituted compelled speech, violating freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court granted the CCLA public interest standing, finding that the legislation's true purpose was partisan advocacy rather than neutral information sharing.

Consequently, the court held that the FCTTA and O. Reg. 275/19 infringed section 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justified under section 1, declaring them to be of no force or effect.

The plaintiff's class action for systemic negligence in bail hearings was denied certification.

On appeal, the Crown raised the new Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (CLPA) as a bar to the negligence claim.

The Divisional Court remitted this specific issue to the motion judge.

The judge found that the CLPA did not substantially change the common law on Crown immunity and that the plaintiff's claim, which challenged high-level policy decisions regarding resource allocation and management of the criminal justice system, remained non-justiciable as a core policy matter, both under the CLPA and pre-CLPA common law.

Consequently, the negligence claim was deemed dismissed without costs under s. 11(8) of the CLPA.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming virtual appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court issued directions regarding the use of Zoom, attire, and the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities via a password-protected drop box.

The moving party sought a stay of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario remedial decision pending the outcome of its judicial review application.

The moving party argued that compliance with the remedial orders would divert critical resources away from the COVID-19 pandemic response.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Divisional Court found that the moving party established a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the public interest, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion was granted, and the Tribunal's orders were stayed until 10 days following the release of the judicial review decision.

A case management endorsement providing directions for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court outlined procedures for videoconferencing, electronic filing of materials, and the format of the hearing.

The court also directed that Ontario's motion to stay the impugned decision be adjourned to the panel hearing the application, rather than being heard by a single judge.

A case management endorsement setting out the procedure for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court provided directions on electronic filings, videoconferencing protocols, and public access.

The applicant's motion to stay the impugned decision was adjourned to the panel, with the court declining the respondent's request to adjourn it to a single judge after the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice, on remittal from the Divisional Court, reconsidered the certification of an operational negligence class action claim against the provincial government in light of the newly enacted Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) and a constitutional challenge under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court found it was not plain and obvious that the operational negligence claim was statute-barred by the CLPA, particularly due to the "decision" requirement in s. 11(4) of the CLPA and the plaintiff's pleadings.

Furthermore, the court determined that the s. 96 constitutional challenge to the CLPA was not plainly and obviously doomed to fail, emphasizing the importance of access to courts and the Supreme Court's caution against restoring complete governmental immunity by broadly defining "policy matters." The court concluded that the meaning and constitutionality of the CLPA should be decided on a complete record at trial or summary judgment, not on a pleadings motion.

The original certification of the operational negligence claim remained intact, and a new common issue regarding the CLPA's effect was added by consent.