Hanley v. Eden, (2005) 193 O.A.C. 292 (DC)

• Judge: O'Driscoll, Kiteley and Benotto, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: January 11, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2005), 193 O.A.C. 292 (DC)

Hanley v. Eden (2005), 193 O.A.C. 292 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.045

Steven Hanley (applicant) v. Dr. David Eden, Coroner (respondent)

(No. 665/04)

Indexed As: Hanley v. Eden

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

O'Driscoll, Kiteley and Benotto, JJ.

January 11, 2005.

Summary:

The applicant sought judicial review of orders by the respondent coroner.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application except for quashing an order that required the applicant's counsel to disclose informa­tion about his solicitor/client relation­ship with the applicant's employer.

Coroners - Topic 4061

Inquests - Judicial review - General - The Ontario Divisional Court discussed the question of when a superior court was entitled to intervene in a coroner's inquest - See paragraphs 21 to 24.

Coroners - Topic 4067

Inquests - Judicial review - Grounds for quashing - General - A coroner's inquest was called respecting a March 2003 acci­dental death on a ski hill - The inquest was to start in January 2004, at the height of the ski season, in order to have maximum exposure for the inquest and maximum impact on the public - The inquest was postponed where the Ontario Minister of Labour had one year from the date of the accident to lay charges - The Minister did not lay charges - The inquest was rescheduled for January 2005 - The ski hill operators sought an adjournment to a time outside peak ski season, arguing that they had to be on the hill to make decisions "often minute by minute during the day concerning hill safety" - The coroner re­fused the request - The Ontario Divisional Court upheld the decision, ruling that the coroner did not make a jurisdictional error - See paragraphs 25 to 38.

Coroners - Topic 4067

Inquests - Judicial review - Grounds for quashing - General - A skier died after contact with a grooming machine - A coroner's inquest was called - The inquest was to start in January 2004, at the height of the ski season, in order to have maxi­mum exposure for the inquest and maxi­mum impact on the public - The inquest was rescheduled for January 2005 - The ski hill operators sought an adjournment to a time outside peak ski season, arguing that they had to be on the hill to make deci­sions "often minute by minute during the day concerning hill safety" - At a pre-inquest hearing, for which the coroner requested the presence of the grooming machine operator, his employment record and the employment record of another ski hill employee, the coroner refused to grant the adjournment - The grooming machine operator sought judicial review on grounds of ap­prehension of bias - The Ontario Divi­sional Court dismissed the application - See paragraphs 39 to 42.

Coroners - Topic 4067

Inquests - Judicial review - Grounds for quashing - General - A coroner's inquest was called respecting an accidental death on a ski hill - The coroner made orders that were challenged on a judicial review application - One such order was that counsel disclose information about his solicitor/client relationship with the corpor­ate ski hill operator - The Ontario Divi­sional Court quashed that order as unreas­onable and constituting a jurisdictional error - See paragraphs 43 to 49.

Cases Noticed:

Beckon v. Deputy Chief Coroner (Ont.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 21; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 161 (C.A.), affing. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 83; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 136 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 19].

M.A.S. et al. v. Ludwig et al. (2004), 190 O.A.C. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

People First of Ontario et al. v. Regional Coroner of Niagara et al. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 90; 5 O.R.(3d) 609 (Div. Ct.), revd. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 187; 6 O.R.(3d) 389 (C.A.), consd. [para. 21].

Sears Canada Inc. v. Southwest Region Regional Coroner (1997), 102 O.A.C. 60 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 22].

Sears Canada Inc. v. Davis Inquest (Cor­oner of) - see Sears Canada Inc. v. Southwest Region Regional Coroner.

Kingston Penitentiary (Range Representa­tive on Administrative Segregation) v. Regional Coroner (Eastern Ontario) (1989), 33 O.A.C. 241; 38 Admin. L.R. 141 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 23].

Stanford v. Harris - see Kingston Peniten­tiary (Range Representa­tive on Adminis­trative Segregation) v. Regional Coroner (Eastern Ontario).

Black Action Defence Committee v. Huxter (1992), 59 O.A.C. 327; 11 O.R.(3d) 641 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 24].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Founda­tion et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, consd. [para. 39].

Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board et al. v. Young (Coroner) (1998), 115 O.A.C. 396 (C.A.), reving. (1997), 98 O.A.C. 188 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 40].

Booth et al. v. Huxter (1994), 69 O.A.C. 1; 16 O.R.(3d) 528 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 50].

Counsel:

T.S.B. Danson, for the applicant;

J. Olah, for Craigleith Ski Club;

P.J. Pliszka, for Bombardier Recreational Products;

K.G. Crompton, for the Ontario Snow Resorts Association;

C. O'Donnell and D. Carruthers, for the respondent, Dr. Eden;

W. Teggart, for the family of the late Moira Caswell.

This application was heard on January 7, 2005, by O'Driscoll, Kiteley and Benotto, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court released the follow­ing decision on January 11, 2005.