Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Charter - Evidence (3)

. Prinzen v. Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board

In Prinzen v. Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court considered (school board) trustee-brought JRs, these brought against "two decisions that she breached the Trustees’ Code of Conduct (the “Code”) by disclosing confidential information".

Here the court rules against the applicant's Charter arguments, in a fashion akin to one of summary dismissal:

Issue 3: No breach of Sections 2(b), 7 and 15 of the Charter

[24] The applicant argues that the Decisions and Sanctions unjustifiably infringed her s. 2(b) Charter rights. She submits that her communications were core political expression made in her capacity as an elected trustee performing her duties under s. 218.1 of the Education Act. She maintains that the Board provided no meaningful justification for its decisions and failed to conduct any Charter analysis.

[25] The applicant further submits that the sanctions engaged her ss. 7 and  15 Charter rights, particularly given the Board’s treatment of her as a disabled litigant seeking health‑related accommodation during the appeal processes.

[26] The applicant’s s. 2(b) rights were not engaged. The applicant agreed to be bound by the Code which included the confidentiality provisions. She could have challenged the Code as unconstitutional but she did not do so. The applicant remained free to express her opinions and the concerns she had without breaching her duty of confidentiality as a publicly elected trustee of the Board.

[27] It is unclear how ss. 7 and  15 were engaged or violated, given that the applicant did not request any health‑related accommodations during the process.

. Ashurova v. Canada (Attorney General)

In Ashurova v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against a JR decision that upheld a "Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) officer" decision that the appellant was "ineligible for the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (the CRCB)" - a COVID-era federal income support program operated in concert with the CRB and the CERB.

Here the court applied the inadequate evidentiary preparation of a Charter argument as - IMHO and in effect - a summary dismissal of the argument:

[22] Finally, the appellant’s written submissions raise arguments about alleged misfeasance in public office, which are without merit. Likewise, her allegations in those submissions of a breach of the Charter fail as they are vague and lack an adequate factual foundation, which must exist to support an alleged breach of the Charter: Mackay v. Manitoba, 1989 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357 at p. 361.

. R. v. Zaki

In R. v. Zaki (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the effect of the inadequacy of evidence in a Charter case:

[20] While not pursued at trial, the appellant brings a notice of constitutional question to seek relief from the SOIRA registration. Although this court may consider the appellant’s Charter request for relief under s. 24(1), the record is not sufficiently developed to make the factual findings required to determine the appellant’s claim for a personal remedy; we are therefore of the view that it is more appropriately brought before a court of first instance: R. v. N.D., 2024 ONCA 777, at paras. 49 and 51.

. McQueen v. Douglas

In McQueen v. Douglas (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR application, here brought against decisions of an appointed Superior Court judge that dismissed complaints [under CJA 33.1 'Complaints'] of improprieties against a referee and two deputy-judges.

Here the court found the application, insofar as it pleaded Charter grounds - and which made only "bare or bald statements" - was insufficient:

[23] The applicant has asked for "[a] declaration that the Respondents' conduct infringed the Applicant's rights under sections 7, 15, and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The only ground for this claim, is a repeat of the relief requested: “The cumulative failures have deprived the Applicant of her rights to procedural fairness and equality under sections 7, 15, and 24(1) of the Charter”, and “[t]he Applicant intends to raise constitutional questions regarding violations of sections 7, 15, and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Notice will be served upon the Attorney General of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada pursuant to section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act”.

[24] The allegations with respect to the Charter infringement are bare or bald statements unsupported by any facts necessary to sustain them. The only reference to a Charter right was a claim that Justice Douglas “perpetuated discrimination against the Applicant as a Métis woman”. It is impossible to know from the application what actions, if any, infringed the Applicant’s rights. Therefore, on their face, I find they are frivolous and should be dismissed.