Public and Administrative Law
The firm is widely viewed as a leader in the areas of public and administrative law, and is experienced with matters involving wide range of provincial and federal administrative tribunals.
We have acted both before and on behalf of such tribunals in judicial review proceedings, administrative appeals, and constitutional challenges. Our lawyers have appeared before all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, and have argued some of Canada’s leading public and administrative law cases. Our lawyers have also written extensively on a vast array of public and administrative law issues, and are frequently asked to speak on the latest developments in their respective areas of expertise.
Representative Work
-
R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2020/2020scc14/2020scc14.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAQImRhbmllbGxlIGdsYXR0IgAAAAAB&resultIndex=1)
The CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada in December 2019, adding its voice to the appellant and those of other civil liberties organizations, lawyers’, and advocacy groups who drew attention to the broader systemic issues arising from bail practices in Canada.
The CCLA submitted that a purposive, policy-driven interpretation of s. 145(3), which aligns with the Supreme Court’s holding that breach of recognizance, requires subjective mens rea. The CCLA highlighted the unique impact of overly expansive or restrictive conditions on marginalized people, who are criminalized at disproportionate rates.The appeal was allowed in a unanimous decision written by Martin J. on June 18, 2020. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court relied on the findings of the CCLA’s 2014 report, “Set Up to Fail: Bail and the Revolving Door of Pre-Trial Detention.” In line with the CCLA’s findings in that report, the Court highlighted that many bail orders contain release conditions that are often not tailored to individual risk assessments, and that broadening the scope of criminal liability to include objective fault for breach of conditions would unduly criminalize people who have the right to be presumed innocent of their initial charges, and who are engaging in conduct that absent a court order is a lawful exercise of personal freedom. -
Rob Centa, Emily Lawrence and Alysha Shore successfully represented the University of Toronto in responding to a motion for an interim injunction. The applicant sought to enjoin the University from reporting the unsuccessful results of her final assessment to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“CPSO”) pending the outcome of her judicial review. In applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that there was no irreparable harm to the applicant and the balance of convenience favoured the University given its statutory reporting obligations to the CPSO and the broad mandate of protecting the public. The motion for an interim injunction was dismissed.
Mehar v. The University of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 1293:
-
Chris Paliare, Richard Stephenson and Dan Rosenbluth acted successfully on behalf of a Niagara On The Lake residents’ group, the SORE Association. SORE opposed a proceeding by a developer which sought to quash Notices of Intention to Designate issued by the Town under the Ontario Heritage Act. Justice Walters dismissed the application, in its entirety. This result will help to protect an important heritage property in the town of Niagara On The Lake.
-
Rob Centa and Glynnis Hawe represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in C.M. v. York Regional Police, 2019 ONSC 7220. The court accepted Rob and Glynnis’s submissions that the over-policing of marginalized and racialized persons bolsters the importance of providing a transparent and fair process for persons seeking and challenging the content of a police Vulnerable Sector Check.
C.M. v York Regional Police, 2019 ONSC 7220 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j3z3v>
-
Jodi Martin and Elizabeth Rathbone acted for the Ontario Association of Child Protection Lawyers in Hunt v. Worrod, 2019 ONCA 540. The issue in the appeal was the award of significant costs against Legal Aid Ontario for providing funding in an estates litigation matter. The Association intervened to provide the Court of Appeal with submissions concerning the implication of the costs award for access to justice in child protection matters, and the impact on solicitor client privilege for litigants who rely on legal aid certificates. The appeal was allowed.