CROWN - Actions by and against Crown - Injunctions
Tuesday, September 08, 2020 @ 9:00 AM
Application by Humphries for a mandatory injunction ordering the Province of Ontario to end the use of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (Act). Humphries essentially alleged that Ontario’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was disproportionate to the real risks posed by the disease. He did not challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. Humphries was advised that the court was considering making an order staying or dismissing the proceeding because it appeared on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Humphries was given a chance to respond to the notice and did so.
HELD: Application dismissed. There was no legal basis for Humphries’ assertion that actions taken under the Act had to be minimally intrusive. He did not state a proper legal claim and did not provide a factual basis for a claim. His potentially admissible evidence fell far short of establishing a factual basis for any kind of relief. The balance of his evidence was inadmissible. Humphries did not state a private interest in the issues that gave him standing to bring the application. He did not establish a basis on which he should be granted public interest standing. The defects in the notice of application were not merely technical or drafting difficulties faced by a self-represented applicant. The application was doomed to fail. It was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
Humphries v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2020] O.J. No. 3214, Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court, D.L. Corbett J., July 27, 2020. Digest No. TLD-September72020001
HELD: Application dismissed. There was no legal basis for Humphries’ assertion that actions taken under the Act had to be minimally intrusive. He did not state a proper legal claim and did not provide a factual basis for a claim. His potentially admissible evidence fell far short of establishing a factual basis for any kind of relief. The balance of his evidence was inadmissible. Humphries did not state a private interest in the issues that gave him standing to bring the application. He did not establish a basis on which he should be granted public interest standing. The defects in the notice of application were not merely technical or drafting difficulties faced by a self-represented applicant. The application was doomed to fail. It was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
Humphries v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2020] O.J. No. 3214, Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court, D.L. Corbett J., July 27, 2020. Digest No. TLD-September72020001
