Stuart Zacharias

Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. City of Hamilton (2024, Div. Ct.) – Stuart represented the respondent in a judicial application brought by the applicant political party after its proposed bus shelter advertisement was declined for publication. The respondent concluded that the ad could impact on its ability to provide a “safe and welcoming” transit system for its constituents. In particular, it concluded that running the ad could potentially impact the health and safety of transgender and non-gender conforming persons using the transit system. The application was dismissed and the respondent’s decision upheld. The applicant has sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Hasan v. Trillium Health Centre (Mississauga) (2024, C.A.) – Stuart represented the appellant on an appeal from a trial judgment in a case involving a delayed diagnosis of stroke. The appeal was dismissed in a decision which departed in a significant way from the previous case law on the test for causation in cases of negligent omission. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has been sought.

Rivard v. Kingston Police (2023, Div. Ct.) – Stuart represented the appellant on an appeal, with leave, from a decision declining to strike allegations against the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board. The appeal was allowed in part, the Divisional Court further clarifying the permissible scope of negligence allegations against police services boards, and striking out certain paragraphs without leave to amend. Represented the appellant on a further appeal, with leave, before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. That decision is pending.

Murphy v. Savoie (2019, C.A.) – Stuart acted for the plaintiff in successfully opposing the defendant insurer’s appeal from a motion decision which found the plaintiff to be an insured under the OPCF 44R family protection endorsement to her spouse’s employer’s auto insurance policy, arising from a pedestrian knock-down accident.

Martin v. City of Barrie (2018, C.A.) – Stuart successfully represented the City on this appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the action against the City. The plaintiff alleged a breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act arising from an injury sustained on a snow slide at the City’s annual “Winterfest” event. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the City met the standard which was one of reasonableness, not perfection.

Smith v. Attorney General (Ontario) et al. (2019, C.A.): Stuart represented the Durham Regional Police on this appeal, with leave, from a decision of the Divisional Court which reversed a motion decision refusing to strike the police crossclaim against the co-defendant Crown Attorneys. The case arose from a complex murder investigation and raised the novel issue of whether an investigating police force can claim indemnity from Crown Attorneys who provided legal advice with respect to the conduct of the investigation.

Farley v. Ottawa Police Services Board (2017, C.A.): Stuart successfully represented the Ottawa Police on this appeal by the plaintiff, against whom Stuart had acted for the Ottawa Police in obtaining summary judgment. The court affirmed the granting of summary judgment based on determinations made in the underlying criminal proceedings, principally the Court of Appeal’s order for a second trial – which meant that a reasonable, properly instructed jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.

Azzeh v. Legendre (2017, C.A.): Stuart successfully represented the City of Greater Sudbury on this appeal from a motion adding it as a defendant. The court reversed the motion decision and held that the proposed claim against the City was barred by the 10 day notice period in the Municipal Act. The court also provided helpful guidance on the application of the Limitations Act where a litigation guardian is involved. The co-defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.

R. v. Bingley (2017, S.C.C.): Stuart acted for the intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in an appeal regarding the Criminal Code provisions with respect to evaluation of drug impaired driving.

Baum ats Brown (2016, C.A.): Stuart acted for the appellant from a motion for summary judgment, on an appeal which clarified s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

Pickering ats Rausch (2013, C.A.): Stuart acted for the successful defendant in obtaining leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arising from a Rule 21 motion dealing with the scope of a municipality’s duty of care in the context of by-law enforcement.

Barrie ats McHardy (2012, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful defendant in obtaining leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, arising from a motion for summary judgment based on a statutory bar contained in the Municipal Act.

Durham Regional Police ats Mohamed et al. (2011, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful defendants, on an appeal from a Master's order which dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for production of any complaint and discipline records. The Master's decision was upheld and also found to be correct based on a subsequent decision of the Divisional Court.

Vaidyanathan ats Leek et al. (2011, C.A.): Stuart acted for the successful appellant, on an appeal which examined the applicability of Rule 21 to a pre-trial consideration of the duty to mitigate damages.

Caston ats Alves (2010, C.A.): Stuart acted for the successful respondent, on an appeal which affirmed the enforcement of a settlement which included a provision that the opposing party sign a Release.

Darnley et al. ats Alexis (2009, C.A.): Stuart acted for the successful respondent/intervenor, on an appeal which clarified that the Limitations Act, 2002 applies to claims for damages under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appellant's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.