37030 Salvatore Amormino v. Police Services Board (OPP), Robin D. McElary-Downer (Force Adjudicator - OPP), Commissioner of Provincial Police (OPP) J.V.N. (Vince) Hawkes, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Attorney General of Ontario, OPP Association (Karl Walsh)
Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Right to fundamental justice – Right to pursue a livelihood
Mr. Amormino, who was an Ontario Provincial Police officer at the relevant times, argues that the structure of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, breaches his constitutional right to a fair hearing before an independent and unbiased tribunal. The Ontario Provincial Police alleged eight counts of workplace misconduct against Mr. Amormino under that Act. The disciplinary proceedings were eventually stayed until Mr. Amormino’s request for judicial review had been heard and decided.
The application for judicial review was dismissed on December 11, 2015. The Court of Appeal dismissed separate applications for leave to appeal from Mr. Amormino and the OPP Association.
37005 Wei Chen v. Howie, Sacks and Henry LLP, Singer Kwinter
Civil procedure – Vexatious litigants
The applicant, Mr. Chen, was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He issued a claim against his own insurer for additional accident benefits to be paid and started a tort action against those responsible for the accident. The respondent law firm of Howie, Sacks and Henry LLP were Mr. Chen’s counsel when his accident benefits claim settled. The respondent law firm of Singer Kwinter were Mr. Chen’s counsel when his tort claim was settled.
Following the settlement of his tort action, Mr. Chen began various proceedings against some of his previous lawyers, including the respondent law firms, in relation to the handling of his claims. None of these proceedings have been successful. The respondent law firms applied to the Ontario Superior Court for an order declaring Mr. Chen a vexatious litigant. Mr. Chen sought to have the application adjourned due to illness. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.
37013 Richard Quansah v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Evidence – Witness
The victim and the applicant were both inmates at the Central North Correctional Centre. The victim challenged the applicant to a fight. At first, the applicant demurred. The next morning, the applicant answered the challenge. The applicant stated that he stabbed the victim in self-defence. The victim died. The jury found the applicant guilty of first degree murder. The applicant appealed his conviction. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36867 Aviva Canada Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Insurance – Automobile insurance
An accident occurred in an intersection involving a motor vehicle and a motorcycle. There was no collision between the two vehicles. However, as a result of the motor vehicle’s left hand turn, the motorcycle driver swerved, lost control of his motorcycle, fell to the ground and was injured. The motorcycle driver applied to his insurer, the respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), for accident benefits payments. State Farm paid him the benefits and then sought indemnification from the insurer of the motor vehicle, the applicant Aviva Canada Inc. (“Aviva”). The issue in this case is whose fault is the accident. The answer depends on how the Rules under the Fault Determination Rules, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668 (“FDRs”) are interpreted. Specifically, Rule 5(1) states:
If an incident is not described in any of these rules, the degree of fault of the insured shall be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law. [Emphasis added]
State Farm and Aviva did not agree on the matter of indemnification and took the matter to arbitration. The Arbitrator determined the motor vehicle insured by Aviva was 100 per cent at fault for the accident. Aviva appealed the Arbitrator’s award. The application judge set aside the award and declared that the motorcycle driver was 50 percent at fault for the accident. The Court of Appeal set aside the order of the application judge and restored the Arbitrator’s award.
37032 Jarvis Stewart v. Gordon James Keating
Appeals – Leave to appeal
The applicant, Jarvis Stewart, was stopped by the respondent, Constable Gordon Keating, while driving his vehicle. He was eventually arrested for obstruction of a police officer and convicted of that offence. Mr. Stewart commenced a civil action against Cst. Keating, claiming damages for injuries allegedly suffered during his arrest and for his detention after the arrest. The trial judge dismissed the action and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
37055 RBC General Insurance Company v. Zofia Machaj
Limitations – Insurance – Statutory accident benefits
The respondent, Zofia Machaj, was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Her request to the applicant, RBC General Insurance Company (“RBC”), for a catastrophic impairment designation (which would allow her to claim increased statutory accident benefits) was denied.
More than two years after the denial, Ms. Machaj commenced mediation proceedings. Mediation was unsuccessful and Ms. Machaj commenced an action against RBC seeking a declaration that she suffered a catastrophic impairment. RBC brought a motion for summary judgment, on the basis that Ms. Machaj’s action was statute barred by reason of the operation of the limitation period found at s. 281.1 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, which provides that mediation proceedings must be commenced within two years after the insurer’s refusal to pay the benefits claimed.
The motion judge allowed the motion and dismissed the action, finding that it was statute barred. The Court of Appeal allowed Ms. Machaj’s appeal and set aside the order dismissing the action.
36913 P.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Charter of Rights– Family law – Protective agencies and institutions
The applicant’s daughter – born November 19, 2011 – is now almost five years old. She has been in the continuous care and custody of The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto since she was just under five months old, and has resided with her foster mother – and proposed adoptive parent – throughout that time. The finding that the applicant’s daughter was a child in need of protection was made on an uncontested basis on June 13, 2012, because both parents were incarcerated then. A status review was held when the child was two years old. On April 29, 2014, the trial judge made the child a Crown ward, for the purpose of adoption, without parental access. The applicant appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Justice. On March 31, 2015, the appeal judge dismissed the applicant’s first appeal and on October 19, 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed his second. (See the mother’s related file, number 36997.)
36997 E.O. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Charter of Rights– Family law – Protective agencies and institutions
The applicant’s daughter – born November 19, 2011 – is now almost five years old. She has been in the continuous care and custody of The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto since she was just under five months old, and has resided with her foster mother – and proposed adoptive parent – throughout that time. The finding that the applicant’s daughter was a child in need of protection was made on an uncontested basis on June 13, 2012, because both parents were incarcerated then. A status review was held when the child was two years old. On April 29, 2014, the trial judge made the child a Crown ward, for the purpose of adoption, without parental access. The child’s father appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Justice. On March 31, 2015, the appeal judge dismissed the father’s first appeal and on October 19, 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed his second. (See the father’s related file, number 36913.)