Marc Hall saga over.

Toronto -- Regular readers of C.I. will recall the Marc Hall case [see Geoffrey F. Cauchi, "A Catholic Lawyer Takes a Look at the Marc Hall Case," July/August and September, 2003]. This was the case of the young homosexual who obtained an interim court injunction ordering his Roman Catholic high school to permit him to attend the school prom with his homosexual partner. This injunction was granted in the course of his action against the Durham Catholic District School Board for $100,000 in damages.

This case came to an abrupt halt on June 29, 2005 when all the parties to the litigation appeared before Mr. Justice Shaugnessy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who ultimately issued an order permitting Marc Hall to discontinue his action against the school board and the principal, before trial of the action, which was scheduled for October 11, 2005. In opposing the order, the school board did not object to Hall's request that he not be required to pay any portion of its legal costs, which are estimated at $150,000 [LifeSiteNews.com, June 29, 2005]; instead, it objected to being denied its "day in court," a chance to vindicate its position in this matter.

The school board and principal asked that, at the very least, the judge "quash" the interlocutory injunction of Justice MacKinnon. The judge declined to do so, on the grounds that he lacked judicial authority to give such an order, and because "no useful purpose would be served by doing so." (The injunction related to a specific event that happened three years ago, and had no continuing effect.)

Asked to comment on these developments, Mississauga lawyer Geoff Cauchi remarked: "I understand the frustration of the defendants in being denied an opportunity to present at a full trial all the evidence and arguments in support of their position that they did not have the time to assemble at the hearing of the interlocutory injunction application. They and their lawyers also fear that Justice MacKinnon's ruling will be a precedent for future courts addressing similar legal issues.

"However, in my opinion, little would have been gained by having the injunction formally quashed, and little has been lost by their failure to get their way. In the future, no reasonable court, even the most activist court, would have the audacity to suggest that it is "bound," by the principle of stare decisis, to follow the reasons of Justice MacKinnon in resolving the same legal issues raised in the Marc Hall case. As Justice Shauguessy himself assured the defendants on June 29, 2005: '... [I]njunction reasons are not often accorded great weight, as they are written on an urgent basis on limited material and the legal issues, out of necessity, are dealt with in a cursory and preliminary manner.'"