their wines in other countries using VQAO reserved terms, but
that was because other countries have imposed requirements
restricting the use of these terms subject to the approval of the
wine authority in which the wine is produced. Thus, any extra-provincial requirements for Ontario winemakers to comply with
the VQAO are pursuant to the authority of the other countries
and not at the behest of the VQAO, which remains within its
 For these reasons the application is dismissed. The parties
may make written submissions on the question of costs. The
Applicant shall file its submissions by January 10, 2019 and
the respondents shall file their responses ten days after receiving
the Applicant’s submissions.
Campisi v. Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as Repre-
sented by the Attorney General of Ontario et al.
[Indexed as: Campisi v. Ontario (Attorney General)]
2018 ONCA 869
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Rouleau, Watt and D. M. Brown JJ.A.
October 30, 2018
Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Standing — Applicant applying
for declaration that certain provisions of Insurance Act relating to
automobile accident claims violate ss. 7 and 15 of Charter — Application
judge not erring in finding that fact that applicant was lawyer who
represented clients affected by impugned provisions did not give him
private or public interest standing to bring application — Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 15 — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.
The applicant, a lawyer, brought an application for a declaration that s. 267.5(1)
of the Insurance Act, which places limits on the recovery of pre-trial income loss in
automobile accident claims, and s. 280 of the Act, which confers jurisdiction over
statutory accident benefits disputes to an administrative tribunal, violate ss. 7 and
15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that s. 280 contravenes
s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The application was dismissed on the ground
that the applicant lacked standing. The applicant appealed.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed.
The application judge did not err in finding that the fact that the applicant
represented clients affected by the impugned provisions did not give him private
or public interest standing to bring the application. The applicant’s scholarly