Killing Ontario » Case Law and Public Authority Liability

Case Law and Public Authority Liability

Registrar REBBA v Jolly, 2016 ONSC 2338 (CanLII)
Divisional Court — Ontario | 2016-04-18  |  9 pages
Administrative remedies — Judicial review — Practice and procedure

  • […]   In this decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s request for costs on the basis that s. 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA ”) limits the authority to award costs to matters involving conduct that is unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or done in bad faith.   […]   [9] Section 32 of the SPPA states that, unless an Act expressly provides otherwise, the provisions of the SPPA prevail over the provisions of that Act in the event of a conflict.   […]   [18] According to the Applicant, the “fatal flaw” in the reasoning of the Tribunal is that it ignores and gives no meaning to the words “under this section” in s. 17.1(2) and (3) of the SPPA .   […]

 

Law Society of Ontario v. Isaac, 2021 ONLSTA 10 (CanLII)
Law Society Tribunal — Ontario  | 2021-04-12  |  15 pages  |  cited by 1 document
vexatious litigant — reinstatement application — motion panel — bencher — suspension

  • […]   He relied on s. 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22 (the SPPA ).   […]   [65] Section 23(1) may be contrasted against s. 25.0.1 (a) of the SPPA , which provides that:   […]   [69] In sum, taking into account the purpose of s. 23(1) , the different language chosen by the legislature for ss. 23(1) and 25.0.1 (a), and the requirement that the SPPA be liberally construed to “secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits,” I conclude that a   […]

 

Ontario Nurses' Association v A Director under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2022 CanLII 21274 (ON LRB)
Ontario Labour Relations Board — Ontario | 2022-03-14  |  13 pages
publication ban issued — broadcast — closing the to the public — proceeding — identity

  • […]   36. The Board has jurisdiction to close the CMH to the public pursuant to section 9 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA ”).   […]   39. Subsection 9(1) of the SPPA creates a statutory presumption that oral hearings conducted by the Board are open to the public.   […]   A party seeking to rebut that presumption and close a hearing to the public bears a heavy onus of demonstrating that doing so fits squarely within subsection 9(1) (b) of the SPPA .   […]

 

Registrar REBBA v Jolly, 2016 ONSC 2338 (CanLII)
Divisional Court — Ontario | 2016-04-18  |  9 pages
Administrative remedies — Judicial review — Practice and procedure

  • […]   In this decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s request for costs on the basis that s. 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA ”) limits the authority to award costs to matters involving conduct that is unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or done in bad faith.   […]   [9] Section 32 of the SPPA states that, unless an Act expressly provides otherwise, the provisions of the SPPA prevail over the provisions of that Act in the event of a conflict.   […]   [18] According to the Applicant, the “fatal flaw” in the reasoning of the Tribunal is that it ignores and gives no meaning to the words “under this section” in s. 17.1(2) and (3) of the SPPA .   […]

 

Maximova v. Medallion Corporation, 2018 HRTO 569
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — Ontario | 2018-05-01  |  1 page
discrimination — threat of reprisal — allegedly — sick — mistreated

  • The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that her supervisor intimidated, abused and harassed her. The Application does not associate the abuse, intimidation and harassment with any Code ground. The applicant became ill as a result of the alleged mistreatment and was on a sick leave. She was allegedly mistreated and then terminated upon her return to work from her sick leave.

 

McNaught v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 CanLII 1485 (ON CA)
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Ontario | 2005-01-27  |  25 pages  |  cited by 19 documents
reprisal complaint — contempt — proceedings — motion — consolidate

  • […]   Administrative law -- Duty to act fairly -- Worker filing reprisal complaint against employer under Occupational Health and Safety Act -- Employer bringing motion before Ontario Labour Relations Board pursuant to s. 13 of Statutory Powers Procedure Act asking Board to state case to Divisional Court that worker was guilty of   […]   Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Self-incrimination -- Section 11 of Charter not applying to motion under s. 13 of Statutory Powers Procedure Act to have tribunal state case to Divisional Court that person has been guilty of contempt -- Person who is subject of s. 13 motion before tribunal not being "charged with offence"   […]   The contempt motion was brought pursuant to s. 13(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 ("SPPA ").   […]

 

Research To Do:

  • principle of vicarious liability
  • public authority liability
  • Indirect liability
  • public interesy

 

Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Tort Liability Exposure for Public Authorities
Posted on December 15, 2021 | By: Ryan Shaw

  • In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) clarified when public authorities will be exposed to tort liability in relation to decisions which result in injury to the public. The SCC unanimously ruled in Nelson (City) v Marchi, 2021 SCC 41 (Marchi) that municipalities will not be granted immunity when facing allegations of negligence unless the impugned act or failure to act was a core policy decision which falls within a new framework outlined by the SCC. The new framework for determining when core policy immunity arises will have a far-reaching impact for underwriters of public authorities and those in the industry who deal with claims involving public authorities.

 

Comments