Foster v. Ontario (Children, Community & Social Services)

Foster v. Ontario (Children, Community & Social Services)

The motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant provided no admissible evidence to substantiate allegations of surveillance or privacy breaches, the FIPPA disclosures did not support her claims, and her testimony was insufficient and evasive; therefore no genuine issue for trial existed, the adjournment to call the Ombudsman was properly refused, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness; appointment of amicus and procedural accommodations were appropriate.

Citation
2024 ONCA 259
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Grace Foster; Respondent / Defendant: His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Ministry of Children, Community & Social Services); Respondent / Defendant: Doug Ford; Respondent / Defendant: Todd Smith
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (superior Court of Justice)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Adjournment, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, FIPPA Disclosure, Surveillance Allegations, Appointment of Amicus Curiae
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Charter Litigation Administrative Law Privacy Law Freedom of Information Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Adjournment +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Foster

Appellant / Plaintiff

His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Ministry of Children, Community & Social Services)

Respondent / Defendant

Doug Ford

Respondent / Defendant

Todd Smith

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (superior Court of Justice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the actions
  2. 2 Whether there was admissible evidence that the respondent enabled placement of audio/video devices in the appellant's apartment or shared recordings
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment to call the Ombudsman as a witness

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant provided no admissible evidence to substantiate allegations of surveillance or privacy breaches, the FIPPA disclosures did not support her claims, and her testimony was insufficient and evasive; therefore no genuine issue for trial existed, the adjournment to call the Ombudsman was properly refused, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness; appointment of amicus and procedural accommodations were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs