Introduction

The following is a list of reported and unreported cases (and sometimes just the names of clients to remind me) divided roughly into practice areas. Many cases never go to court because they are settled early on and thus there is never a decision to report. “Reported” means the Reasons were printed in one of the various law reports and where I have that citation it follows the case name. In the digital age almost all Reasons of a Judge are recorded in the court files and are accessible. These are equally valuable in argument as precedent but in the old days having a “reported” case in one of the printed law reports was professionally prestigious.

This list is not so tidy and complete as it might be. It lists some cases that are reported but without the citation (because I can’t find these old citation in 2017). It lists some cases, which don’t have any Reasons because it was a jury trial no decision or Reasons was ever given by a Judge. I list them so I can remember the file and also because a full trial is more of a professional accomplishment to me than many mere arguments with Reasons.

I have divided the list up somewhat arbitrarily into subject areas. There is, or will be, a brief Introduction to each. I have references various essay I wrote in the relevant sections. Some cases appear in several sections.

I had a stack of assorted court materials on various cases in my garage files. There was no particular logic as to what got saved. These are in the data base for future reference and cross-referenced in the appropriate material.

Finally I note that I have binder of clippings related to various cases. It is incomplete in that I remember some news articles that are not found there. It’s a job for another day to get this material scanned and entered in the data base and cross-referenced. Often this is just matter of vanity—“I was noticed”. But there are some issues, e.g. censorship or the Albert Johnson case, where the press coverage was extensive and is part of the story.

There are comments after some cases where I have had the time to write and that case might be interesting to others with an explanation.

Some of the following case references are just to remind me of things past as I “sort and file my life”.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Introduction

The Charter made the practice of law seem progressive and political in the 80s. I wrote a number of essays in this fun time which are noted below. Indeed, many progressive causes were advanced in the courts using Charter arguments.

The chapter on censorship which follows could easily be merged with The Charter because there were, obviously, so many Charter “free speech” angles raised there. In those days freedom of expression was thought to apply to sexual matters. And, while different particular cases were won and lost, generally progress toward openness was made. But in 2017, as the issue of “politically correct speech”, the renewed sex wars of the new century and the immense complications of Internet publication bubble away, censorship in different forms and for different reasons is once again a hot topic.

Twenty years after proclamation the law of libel comes into the Charter “free speech” arena. See the Libel chapter. My last big libel case, Browne v TorStar featured complex arguments on the overlap of Charter free speech principles and their application to the traditional law of libel. This is ridiculously complex and also interesting.

I also wrote a few essays on various Charter issues noted below.

Cases

Clifford v Canada (Attorney General, (1992) 97 DLR (4th) 80, (Gen. Div.)

  • voting rights for prisoners.

Zylberberg v Sudbury Board of Education, 65 OR (2d) 641, (O.A.C.)

  • Div. Ct. then OCA. We lost at the Div. Court, then won in the OCA before a panel of five.

  • Compulsory Christian school prayer abolished

  • FIND CLIPPINGS

Rae v City of Toronto

  • Proclamation of Pride Day

  • (There were Reasons given on this Injunction Application but I have never found them.)

Egan and Nesbitt v Her Majesty, [1995] 2 SCR 513

  • **GET CITATION in SCC**

  • I appeared for the Metropolitan Community Church, really for a committee of Toronto gay activists which took up the cause of equal gay (pension) rights with the Church as a client. The Church intervened in the Supreme Court argument of this case which originated in British Columbia. I ended up as the spokesperson in the SCC in this intervention. Fun. Intense. Worthy. Great colleagues and client. The issue and decision in the history of the legal crusade for “gay right” deserves a longer write-up.

  • Egan and Nesbitt - Comment

    • my private observations on this important SCC case and our intervention

Wasauksing First NAtion v Wausausink Lands Inc., [2002] 3CNLR 287, OCA [2004 OJ No. 810], SCC (2004) SCCA No. 200.

  • Trial—O2/01/18 - Appeal April 2003—OCA #C37772
  • 2 month trial and appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada—successful—Issues—complex fact issues of control of the plaintiff corporation and the application of the Charter to the Corporations Act

Queers Against Israeli Apartheid

  • This was technically an Arbitration under terms of the Pride Day parade participation between a group called Queers Against Israeli Apartheid and a complainant group, B’nai Brith to determine whether Queers could march in the parade. The complaint was that their participation was frightening to some people. The City would de-fund the parade of the parade org didn’t address all complaints in a manner that referenced the City’s anti-harassment policies. The context was a parade that by tradition welcomed many protest groups. I think it would be fair to say Queers was at the fringe of the politics but our evidence about Queers in Israel was powerful. We won.

Censorship

Introduction

I did a number of censorship cases in the 80s and 90s. All involved Charter issues, except Queen v Bierk which predated the Charter. All were about censorship of sexual material of one sort or another.

The context was as follows. The production of video material became accessible in the seventies. This means cheap enough that artists could make their own and of course did. A network of artist run theatres, cooperative production facilities and galleries grew up. The Theatres Branch of the provincial government which had historically censored movies asserted that it had the right and responsibility to censor the “art videos”. Needless to say some of the material contained some scenes of sex. The contemporary mind would think the censor’s position absurdly conservative.

The politics of this fight were interesting. A group of liberal women were key in the fight. The abuse they took from more conservative women is another and interesting tale.

Half my work in this area was for the arts community. The other half was for the gay community.

About the same time a different bureaucracy, Customs censors, became aggressive in seizing gay material. The first case on the book The Joy of Gay Sex was an absurd attack on a fine book on happy sex between men. We won this in a trial that in retrospect was ridiculously solemn. A second more aggressive test case on gay mags, described as “porn” by some, was an effort loosen the chains. All this was in the context of a 1980s fierce local and national fight for “gay liberation”.

There was substantial news coverage of the larger censorship fight in the 80s and 90s including these cases. The news coverage is part of the story. Some of my file material went to the U of T on sexual representation. There are also a lot in my clipping binder which illustrate these cases and the fight generally but are not yet scanned.

As censorship of political speech and the effect of the Internet make “free speech” a hot topic once again, perhaps it is worth reviewing the dynamics and arguments of the earlier fight.

See: Harm is a Noun and a Verb (1998)

Defending the Writer

Cases

Queen v Bierk, Susan Ditta Ian McLaughlan

  • re Canadian Images Film Festival, Peterborough

Ontario Film and Video Appreciation Society (OFAVAS) v Ontario Board of Censors, 41 OR (2d) 583, (1983—Div Ct.), 45 OR (2d) 80, (1984 - OCA), (Co-counsel with Lynn King)

  • re Al Razutis film Amerika—film censorship and Charter of Rights and Freedoms—might be the first big Charter decision

  • successful on the issue that infringement of freedom of expression by film censorship had to be based on particular criteria set out in Regulations

  • FIND G&M CLIPPING—try March 26 /83

OFAVAS v Board of Review, 57 OR (2d) 39 (1986—Div Ct.)

  • (Round Two—on Amerika)

Canadian Committee Against Customs Censorship v Ministry of Customs

  • FIND REASONS REPORTED IN CCC around 1987

  • Customs censorship and The Charter, re The Joy of Gay Sex,

  • See [Censorship Bulletin #6 1987]() GET

Glad Day Bookstore and Jearld Moldenhauer v Canada, Minister, National Revenue—Customs and Excise, 1992 O.J. No 1466

  • Is there a CCC report?

  • Customs censorship and The Charter—this one involved a selection of gay porn magazines

  • The court material from the appeal in this case is saved in the data base. The case book on obscenity was thorough and useful at the time. See HERE The Index is page one and references the page numbers the cases which follow. This is in total a large PDF.

  • Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

Scientology

Introduction

The history of this overheated litigation from the 80s and 90s deserves a write-up. Perhaps I’ll get back to this.

Cases

Church of Scientology v Province of Ontario, [1986]OJ No. 2662, OCA [1997OJ No 1548. ]

  • solemnizing marriages—Div. Ct.
  • No Reasons given

Church of Scientology v Casey Hill (O.C.A.)(1994)18 OR 93rd 385

  • is contempt trial civil or criminal?

Church of Scientology v Casey Hill, 13 WCB 231

  • the failed contempt prosecution

  • this must be reported somewhere

  • contempt prosecution—I did most of the trial before Morris Manning took over

Hill v Manning and Church of Scientology, 35 CCLT 72

  • preliminary libel motion I argued. This was followed by the famous trial and appeals which I did not argue. OCA [1994] OJ No. 961, SCC [1995 SCJ No. 64].

Criminal

Introduction

R v Bill Lewis

  • Artistic Woodworking picket line case

R. v Powless (1973)

  • defence of sex offender—Guilty plea and then responding to sentence appeal (my first case in OCA—noted in a G&M editorial—FIND THIS)

Jesse Chuvalo v Her Majesty (1978)

  • juvenile Sentence Appeal to High Court

Iahtail, Metatawabin and four others v The Queen, [1998] OJ No. 5482.

  • OCA—Juvenile Sentencing Appeal – 84—jurisdiction issue

Policing Issues—Tort

Introduction

I seemed to have a slow and steady stream of civil cases on arrest and malicious prosecution cases involving police. It originated in my early criminal practice and connections. These were generally related to the Law Union project of monitoring the police and responding legally.

The Sparrow and Right to Privacy libel cases were part of this effort. These cases were notoriously difficult to finance. I turned away many requests. The Johnson case on negligence in “the control, management and operation of the police” which was successful—after ten years of litigation—is also in this envelope. (It had Legal Aid backing.)

Johnson v Adamson, 32 OR (2d) 255 (HCJ), 34 OR (2d) 236 (OCA)

Note

  • reported cases dealt with a pleading motion allowing a claim for “negligence in the control, management and operation of a police force”
  • later successful settlement of negligence of police which was “secret” but then reported
  • see memoir, pp. 6-8.
  • FIND EVENTUAL REPORT---NOW AND G&M
  • FIND MOTION THAT PROSECUTION SHOULD BE MURDER

Jane Doe v Metro Police, [1989] OJ No. 471, 5 CCLT (2d) 77, [1990] OJ No. 1584, [1998 OJ No. 2681].

Note

– pleading issues—successful - co-counsel with Mary Cornish at the request of LEAF - Mary Cornish argued the Charter equality issues and I argued the issue of police negligence and duty of care.

Frazier, Bailey et al v Peel Regional Police, 6 OR (3d)429, [1991 OJ No. 2154.]

Note

  • Unsuccessful malicious prosecution trial after a successful settlement of a related libel case
  • there were Reas`ons but I don’t know of a report
  • `FIND REASONS

Hudson v Toronto Harbour Police

  • successful malicious prosecution—settlement before trial]

Kaizer v Her Majesty* 2001

  • unsuccessful malicious prosecution—dismissed on a Motion to strike FIND REPORT
  • nominal success in a settlement

Family and Estate

Introduction

Divorce Children Welfare

  • cover of my book on family issues from 70s—with Penny Jahn

Emin v Emin, 20 RFL 61(1977)

Sturgeon v Children’s Aid Society of Metro Toronto, 26 RFL 68 (1975)

A v B,

  • (unreported—successful claim for support for a surviving disabled common-law partner)

Wilson v Anderson, (1996) 69 CPR (3d) 329, (Gen Div)

  • incapacity and depletion of assets by power of attorney, successful

In the Matter of the Estate of Atkinson

Notes, Comments, References

  • Successful settlement for Pauline Atkinson—“the bag lady millionairess”

BIG STORY IN STAR—FIND CLIPPING

Personal Injury and Insurance

Introduction

  • There were numerous personal injury files and trials especially in the 80s. It was the bulk of my practice for ten years. Most were settled.

Yelissa Krug

  • successful settlement at trial—1979.

Ricketts v Woods, 69OR (2d) 128(OCA).

  • personal injury appeal, unsuccessful

Direk v Dixon, [1998] OJ No 2876 (OCA).

  • personal injury, appeal only, unsuccessful

Brown (Hlychansky) v Canada Life Co.

  • major disability insurance claim, settled successfully just prior to trial—2004

Dennis Tomlinson v Insurance Co.

  • successful trail against Jack Fireman and successful appeal against Ian Scott

  • approx. 1985

  • FIND REPORTED REASONS OCA

Sex Abuse and Harassment

Introduction

I handled a number of sex abuse and harassment files, usually settled and unreported. Almost all were civil rather criminal. - repeated office harassment in Ontario government - Sex abuse by priest for three males—successful settlement - Defence and settlement for abusing teacher

R. v Powless (1973)

  • Defence of sex offender—guilty plea and then responding to sentence appeal (my first case in OCA—I think—noted in G&M editorial—FIND THIS)

Colquhoun v Colquhoun, 14 DLR (4th) 151

  • Sexual abuse—defence, unsuccessful

Katherine Greer v Barbara Wilson Wilson and Patricia Johnson et al. 2000] OJ No 2155, (SCJ)

  • Ottawa—successful sex abuse trial

Griffith v Town of Summerside, PEI (1999)

  • arbitration, sexual harassment, successful defence on professional discipline

  • Arbitration Decision

Miscellaneous Tort

Introduction

I handled numerous odd tort cases in addition to personal injury and libel. There were several successful negligence claims on behalf of inmates for failure to provide medical care. One memorable case was successful on behalf of a fine fellow who suffered period manic episodes and when the Queen St hospital refused to admit him for emergency treatment at his own request, he was turned away, beaten and arrested. So we sued for the mental hospital’s denial of access. The run of my plaintiff practice did not include many medical malpractice cases, a few, three successful and one not so after a hard trial. There were many consultations in this area which did not proceed. Typically people wanted to sue to find out “what happened?” The doctors eventually got much better at disclosure and these dried up.

Of numerous cases on Wrongful Dismissal we handled I can’t think of a single one that went to trial or got reported except Mary Warner noted above, and that on a pleading point. My memoir of some tricky files might be interesting.

Cases

Griffin v Arsenault et al, 2006CarswellPEI13, 20 M.P.L.R (4th) 45, (PEI Trial Division) (2004),PEI CA—2008—successful

Comments

  • three month trial—malicious prosecution, successful,

  • Substantial local news coverage SEE CLIPPINGS

My brief recollections

Dave Griffin is the Deputy Chief of Police for the City of Summerside, Prince Edward Island. As I write this, just having finished his trial, he is the Deputy Chief, a most remarkable fact, given that we have been suing all the people he works with, or worked with, in a three and half month long trial (spread over a year and a half). How they could all sit through the discoveries and then the trial in icy silence, and go to work together for all this time. is a marvel of stubbornness and good manners. Lawyers most often have the good manners, which is easy because we don’t care, ultimately, and often we have the perseverance, especially when we’re well paid, but clients who can fight at close quarters like this—remarkable.

Griffin sued for malicious prosecution, the “prosecution”—technically a labour arbitration—being his alleged “sexual harassment” (details to follow) of two of his junior officers in an internal discipline case. I defended him on those charges in 1999 in the arbitration. We won. The Hearing Officer threw out the charges with some tough comments about how and why the charges ever came forward in the first place.

The City wouldn’t pay Griffin’s legal costs of the arbitration (about $45,000) and we sued to recover those, alleging malicious prosecution in the arbitration proceedings. Malicious prosecution for professional discipline cases is extremely rare. This kind of civil claim usually follows a failed criminal case. The incidents of supposed sexual harassment were indeed trivial matters, more below. The defendants were Griffin’s boss, George Arsenault, the Chief of Police, Dave Poirier, the senior Sergeant of the Force, Terry Murphy, the Town Manager and Andrew Grimes, a junior police officer. They were all involved in starting and continuing the prosecution of Griffin, to some degree (Grimes and Murphy much less than Griffin imagined.) Eventually only the Chief Arsenault was found responsible.

When Griffin sued Grimes he countersued in defamation against Griffin for various things Griffin had said about him in internal documents and a couple of public ones. There was a major battle between Griffin and Grimes over… Another major story! Grimes was clearly a hothead. He had drawn his gun on a teenage speeder. Griffin wanted to charge him criminally. The Chief wanted it all to be internal. Griffin and the Chief eventually got into a public spat about whether Griffin would obey the Chief’s orders on the subject. That public spat lead to a highly publicized discipline case against Griffin that was in process when these other charges materialized. This was not a small case!

The underlying incidents were truly stupid, in my view, as a basis for prosecution for sexual harassment. The details of these are in the trial record and the judge’s reasons. In the “fairground incident” Griffin rubbed the back of Constable Holloway while introducing her to the mayor. It is clear it was exceedingly brief, about six seconds. She felt it was “gross”. It is absurd that this would be viewed as a sexual advance—in the presence of the mayor, Griffin’s wife, his mother and mother-in-law. She did not say anything at the time, indeed instructed her mates not to discuss it. A year later Grimes blurted out something about it to Murphy and we were off and running.

The Chief asked Poirier to investigate this. Poirier immediately expanded it to cover internal office issues involving one Anthony Hippenstall, the guy who cleaned the police cars on the weekends. Hippy made rude jokes, and had for years, in an all-male work environment. Griffin, it was now alleged, aided and abetted, or as it was worded—“created and maintained a hostile work environment” by laughing at his jokes.

The pending charges against Griffin were leaked to the press and became the subject of the politicians’ chowdown at Griffin’s expense. Griffin put out a rebuttal press release which supposedly violated confidentiality policies.

The details of all this go on and on. As noted above, he was acquitted of all charges by Ms Murray, and then sued.

The real motives and dynamics of all the other players was the meat of the malicious prosecution case, at least as far as Griffin was concerned. His view of things always seemed about right to me. However his own stubbornness and impatience with his very weak Chief was very clear but irrelevant to the malice—of the defendants. Arsenault was a very weak guy and Murphy filled the vacuum. Griffin hated Murphy and wanted him “out” of the police station. Griffin definitely wanted Grimes off the force and by the end of the case it appeared he was right. Grimes had to resign. Along the way his efforts to achieve this started a war. According to Griffin, Murphy wanted to crush him because when he became Chief he wouldn’t tolerate political interference. But Griffin’s case against Murphy failed at trial. All this told a tale of “the boys” having a bureaucratic turf war—played out as concerns over sexual harassment. Everybody was religious about keeping the sexual harassment details secret to protect the complainant—who wasn’t complaining. The men were using her. She was hardly a player at all. That aspect of the politics disgusted me.

This branch of saga interested me a lot. Real life in a small city. It was a relief of a sort from legal mechanics and got into the personal dynamics in great detail.

Dowell et al v Mengan Institute, 72 CPR (2d) 238

  • Injunction, unsuccessful

THERE WAS A NEWS STORY---FIND

John A and James B v Canada Life, 66 OR (2d) 296 (Master), 33 CPC (2d) 44, 35 CPC (2d) 1, 35 CPC (2d) 5, 35 CPC (2d) 6, 70 OR (2d) 238

  • pseudonymous litigation, six motions, eventually successful

Cousineau v St Joseph’s Health Centre, 49 CPC (2d) 306

  • conflict of interest Motion re expert evidence • unsuccessful

John Lee v Meat Packing Co.

  • successful trial on fiduciary duties—settled mid-trial—$1M+—huge case but no reported reasons
  • See memoir, page 2—5.

Hawley v Canada, (1990) 30 CPR (3d) 534, (FCTD)

  • prisoners’ rights—ownership of art made in prison—unsuccessful

Nippa v CH Lewis Ltd., 82 DLR (4th) 417,

  • in London, Ontario

  • injunction and damages against land fill operator—successful

  • counsel for plaintiff at the request of the Canadian Environmental Law Association

  • REASONS

Heald v Toronto Board of Education, 2004 CarswellOnt 760, 56 DLR 4th

  • two week trial, unsuccessful

Katz v College of Family Physicians

  • defamation and negligence

Wicks v Harnett, 2007 CarswellOnt 3319, 48 CCLT (3d) 165

  • 4 day trial—issue—ownership of ‘discarded’ cartoons—when is garbage truly —abandoned—unsuccessful for the finders at trial

Jaffe v Sun Bank and Dearing, 65 OR(2d) 113

  • Conflicts, successful

Lumbreras—Ximenes et al v Allstate Insurance, 11 OR (2d) 639

  • Conflicts, successful

Moon v Sher, Cudahy et al, 2005 CarswellOnt 4702,

  • conflicts jurisdiction motion and appeal, unsuccessful, but successful on costs,

Stewart v Berry, [1994] OJ No 2968 (Gen Div),

  • in Kingston

  • malpractice trial against psychiatrist, unsuccessful

Heyday v Conn—malpractice, psychiatrist, transferred

McIntosh Young and Owen Young v The Lubicon Nation, [1991] OJ No. 3850, [1999] OJ No 3851.

  • Cost—Reference and Report

Moon v Sher—appeal costs, [2003] OJ No. 2463 and OJ No. 2464.[2004]OJ No. 4651 and No. 3658.

YCC No 216 v Dudnick, 3 OR (3d), (Div Ct)

Corporate Commercial

Introduction

There were always commercial and corporate matters spun off from Brian Iler’s busy solicitors practice. The vast majority of these got settled before getting to court. But there were also many of files that came to me because people didn’t want or trust Bay St.

Los Andes of Hamilton Co-operative Inc. v Robles, [1994] OJ No 799, (Gen Div)

  • co-op organization, successful trial

Clive Roy v Neil Wycek[1997] OJ No. 294.

  • trial

Ontario v Abilities Frontier Co-operative Homes Inc., [1996] OJ 2586 (Gen Div)

  • government housing programme cancelled by Harris Government

Kestral et al v Woodrow, (1998) 40 CLR (2d) 145, (Gen Div),(2001) 52 OR (3d) 732 (OCA)

  • trial three week—disputed construction contract,—unsuccessful
  • appeal 2001—successfully settled

Belmar Sheet Metal et al v849539 v Ontario Inc., [1994] 24 CLR (2d) 28(Gen Div)

  • Mechanics liens, priority, successful

Wasauksing First NAtion v Wausausink Lands Inc., [2002] 3CNLR 287, OCA [2004 OJ No. 810], SCC (2004) SCCA No. 200.

Note

  • Trial—O2/01/18—Appeal April 2003—OCA #C37772
  • 2 month trial and appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada—successful—Issues—complex fact issues of control of the plaintiff corporation and the application of the Charter to the Corporations Act

Milani v Banks, 32 OR (3d)557

  • successful appeal on criminal rate of interest

Milani v Stabile, 2004 CarswellOnt 2682; (OCA) [2004] OJ No. 2804: (SCC) [2004] SCCA No. 472.

  • mortgage priorities, trial and appeal—successful to the Supreme Court of Canada
  • [Reasons—Trial](/media/public/legal/Stabile-v-Milani.pdf

Milani v Zivoli

  • FIND REASONS – issue was ‘conversion / theft

Downy v TaxSave [2002] OJ No. 2804; [2003] OJ No. 2349.

  • insolvency priorities

  • FIND REASONS

Sharma v A v B

  • complex real estate litigation 2001

  • major document prep— highly complex set of transactions,

  • successful against real estate agent on misrepresentation

Warner v Brock University, [1990] OJ No. 889.

  • power to re-instate in wrongful dismissal—Motion—unsuccessful in OCA –

  • FIND REASONS

Libel

Introduction

As the following list suggests, I was often in court on libel matters. I enjoyed these cases, maybe because the clients were arguing issues of principle and willing to go to trial, perhaps not always wisely. I also had a brief stint as a reporter and a number of close friends in the newspaper business. The Charter eventually intervened in the common law of libel (see Grant v TorStar) which made the later cases that much more interesting.

Freedom of the Press

  • my perhaps cynical conclusions

Comment: Cusson v Quan et al

  • essay on libel issues

Harm is a Noun and a Verb (1998)

Cases

Jaffe v Sun Bank and Dearing, 65 OR(2d) 113

  • conflicts, successful

Moon v Sher, Cudahy et al,, 2005 CarswellOnt 4702,

  • conflicts jurisdiction motion and appeal, unsuccessful, but successful on costs,

Code v Toronto Star, 16 CPC (2d) 296

Hill v Church of Scientology, 35 CCLT 72

Note

  • The case above which I argued on a motion at the early stages of this famous battle is followed by a trial and appeals which I did not argue. The final SCC appeal is below.

  • SCC Reasons in Hill v Scientology

Greenpeace v Toronto Sun, 69 OR (2d) 427

Jaffe v Americans for International Peace, 22 CPC (2d) 286

Beckingham and Doyle v Sparrow, 27 OR (2d) 206 (OAC)

Trial and appeal

Arnold Minors v Toronto Sun et al, [1997] OJ No 714 (Gen. Div.), [1999] 122 OAC 43

Notes, Comments, References

Warner v Earp,

  • (unreported, jury trial, successful $75,000 for plaintiff)
  • St. Catherines, Ontario

Fiset v Pink Triangle et al, [2001] OJ No. 2409

  • SCJ June 13, 2001 (Report of one part of case by Fiset against Pink Triangle, Cheng and other) FIND REASONS In addition to the successful claim against Cheng there was a confiential settlement against Pink Triangle

Gouveia v Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., 1998] OJ No 3830, (General Division),

  • jury trial—modestly successful result with Reasons granting substantial solicitor and client costs

  • Reasons

Keneff v Ivanov, [1998] OJ No 5924, [1998] OJ No 1071 (OAC)

  • appeal counsel—unsuccessful

Katsiapis v North Bay Nugget

  • (unreported Reasons – 1998 – motion re fair reporting of murder trial) 394⁄94—FIND REASONS
  • North Bay, Ontario
  • Brief

Hicks v Stephens, (1997) 40 CCLT (2d) 233, (Gen Div)

  • defamation trial

Bailey v Venton, [1993] OJ No 242 (Gen Div)

Baltruweit v Rubin, University of Ottawa, [2005] OJ No. 2949

  • TRIAL—unsuccessful—GET REASONS

Gates and Martin v Stubbert and Furlanetto, 2004 CarswellOnt 1422, 2006 CarswellOnt20141 (OCA)

  • six week defamation trial, partially successful at trial and mostly unsuccessful on appeal

Theatre Passe Muraille et al v Toronto Star

  • successful settlement—not reported

Right to Privacy Foundation v Toronto Sun

  • successful settlement—not reported 1986

Bailey et al v. Peel Police

  • successful settlement—not reported

Weber v University of Toronto

  • successful settlement—not reported

‘Welfare Mom’ v Toronto Sun

  • ????—Find clippings

Potopcyk v Toronto Sun

  • successful settlement—not reported

Liebman v York University

Sunnybrook Nurses v Hospital and Toronto Star

  • successful settlement of complex defamation

  • SUNNYBROOK NURSES ***Find Clippings*** (2000)

Arduengo v Toronto Star, [2002] OJ No. 4545.

  • 2004—settled just before trial, successful. There are several motions in this file that should be reported

Factum

Browne v Toronto Star, [2013] OJ No. 2701; [2015] OJ No. 2004, [2015] OJ No. 2609.

Notes

  • 4 week trial (2009) – mistrial when Judge died before giving a decision.
  • Motion for Security for Costs by the Defendants before re-trial 2104 denied; i.e. successful for the Plaintiff with costs

  • settled Unsuccessfully before the re-trial

  • [Amended Trial Record](/media/public/legal/Browne-v-Toronto-Star-Amended-Trial-Record-20120727.pdf

  • [Original Article/media/public/legal/Browne-v-Toronto-Star-Original-Article-Online-20080922.pdf)

  • Plaintiff Brief

  • Statement of Defence

  • Trial Record

Planning

Introduction

From 2006 to 2017 I did substantial work on various planning issues in my neighbourhood—“WQW”—and also for other groups. Some files were OMB hearings. A detailed description is at WQW at the OMB.

2059946 Ontario Ltd., et al v City of Toronto and Active 18 Community Association,[2007] OMBD No. 17, 18, 19.

OMB, decisions in three parallel cases—Jan. 10, 2007 and Jan. 8, 2008—after a three month Hearing

2059946 Ontario Ltd. Et al v. City of Toronto and Active 18 Community Organization, [2007] OMBD No. 670.

Section 43 Review, OMB July 11, 2007

City of Toronto v. 2959946 Ontario Ltd., [2007]OJ No. 3021,

Leave Application—79⁄2007, Divisional Court, July 25, 2007

GET REASONS---IS THIS REPORTED

Ossington Community Association v City of Toronto

Admin Law

Introduction

Stevens v Workmen’s Compensation Board,

  • Judicial Review—Div Court—1976

Toronto Board of Health, Heaps et al ats Canada Metals, (1975) 7 OR 92d[ 185; 1974] OJ No, 385, 402, 1081; [1975 OJ No. 693, 1212; [1976] OJ No. 557

With Norman Endicott—75 ???

Dagg v Ontario Human Rights Commission, 26 OR (2d) 100 (1979)

Gilbert et al v Municipality of Metro Toronto, 1985

Dome Funding—I think this is reported

YCC No 216 v Dudnick, 3 OR (3d), (Div Ct)

  • discrimination based on Family Status (1991)

Toronto Harbour Commission v City of Toronto

(2008)—Justice Wilson GET REASONS