Alan W. Bryant

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Kingston Area Taxi Commission revoking his taxi licenses.

The Divisional Court found that the applicant was denied procedural fairness because he received only 6 days' notice instead of the required 14 days, and the Commission continued the hearing on a later date without notifying him or his representative.

The court set aside the Commission's decision and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had concluded that the applicant's employment was terminated for willful disobedience, which disentitled him to termination pay under O. Reg. 288/01 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee placed on administrative leave without pay due to bail restrictions following an arrest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied established arbitral jurisprudence requiring employers to attempt to identify an appropriate temporary position for employees precluded from performing normal duties due to pending criminal charges.

The court rejected the employer's argument that this principle was inapplicable because its actions were in response to bail restrictions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university senate appeals committee decision denying him a specialized accounting degree.

The dispute centered on whether a specific strategic management course could be included in calculating his grade point average for the specialization.

The Divisional Court held that the committee's decision on an academic matter was subject to a reasonableness standard of review and found the decision to exclude the course was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify additional common issues in an existing class action and refusing certification of a proposed related class action.

The claims arose from the distribution of a pension plan surplus following corporate downsizing.

The appellants sought to certify issues related to the partial termination of the pension plan, ownership of the surplus, and estoppel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the court lacks jurisdiction to order a partial termination of a pension plan, and that the other proposed common issues were either inextricably linked to the partial termination claim, already covered by existing certified issues, or inappropriate for certification because they required individual assessments of reliance.

A reporter sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to records of communications among Ministry of the Attorney General officials regarding an ongoing, high-profile criminal prosecution of police officers.

The Ministry refused, relying on the exclusion in s. 65(5.2) for records relating to an ongoing prosecution.

An adjudicator ordered the records produced for an inquiry, interpreting the exclusion narrowly to require a 'substantial connection' and limiting it to documents in the Crown brief.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the order, holding that the adjudicator erred in law by reading in a substantial connection requirement and that the exclusion applied broadly to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal to strike additional grounds and particulars from a Supplemental Notice of Proposal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, emphasizing the strong presumption that administrative tribunal procedures should be completed before seeking judicial review, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld two arbitrators' refusals to order independent medical examinations of the respondent claimant.

The arbitrators had denied the insurer's requests primarily due to the insurer's delay in seeking the examinations until the eve of or during the arbitration hearings.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably concluded the arbitrators had properly exercised their discretion to refuse the examinations in the interests of fairness and preventing delay.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating their tenancies and ordering their eviction under s. 65(1) of the Tenant Protection Act.

Police had executed search warrants and found illegal firearms and drugs in the appellants' units, leading to the arrest of family members and guests.

The appellants argued they were unaware of the illegal items and that s. 65(1) should be interpreted as a strict liability offence allowing a due diligence defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 65(1) does not incorporate a fault element or due diligence defence, and that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion under s. 83 to refuse relief from eviction.

The applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it violated the collective agreement by requiring students in an introductory psychology class to mark the work of other students without pay.

The arbitrator concluded that the students performing the marking function were members of the bargaining unit, relying on past grievance settlements that established an agreed interpretation prohibiting unpaid student labour for teaching and evaluation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and consistent with past interpretations.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision denying its request to reconsider a union certification order.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Board did not request further evidence before denying the reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board fully considered the request and the applicant failed to provide reasons for not responding to the initial certification application or evidentiary support for its claims.

The Board's decision was reasonable and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The corporate respondents sought costs of $32,950.29 on a partial indemnity basis following their success on an application for judicial review.

The applicants, represented by community legal clinics, argued no costs should be awarded as the application raised an issue of public interest regarding the related employer provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, finding the applicants were individuals of limited means who brought the application in good faith to enforce protective legislation, and the case raised an issue of importance for other vulnerable employees.

Following a successful appeal by the defendant, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle the appeal.

The court held that Rule 49 does not apply to offers to settle appeals and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the costs at $12,000 for fees plus disbursements and GST, finding the appellant's claimed hours slightly excessive for a case dismissed at the pleadings stage.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for summary judgment in a defamation action brought by the respondent.

The respondent's action was based on testimony the appellant gave at a Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the RECO Disciplinary Committee is a statutory tribunal and the appellant's testimony was protected by absolute privilege under the witness immunity rule.

As there was no genuine issue for trial, summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Board of Arbitration decision finding it had discriminated against a unionized security officer.

The employer had stopped offering the employee temporary management shifts after she attended a union convention.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement's anti-discrimination clause was logical and rational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Toronto against the university regarding her academic transcript.

The defendants successfully moved to transfer the action to Windsor, but the motion judge imposed a condition that the defendants pay the plaintiff's travel expenses 'in any event of the cause' due to her impecuniosity.

The defendants appealed the condition and the costs order, while the plaintiff cross-appealed the transfer.

The Divisional Court upheld the transfer, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court modified the condition to prevent fettering the discretion of the trial judge regarding costs, and remitted the issue of the motion's costs back to the motion judge as no submissions had been heard.

The respondent was successful on an appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,987 plus disbursements and taxes.

The appellants argued the claimed rates and hours were excessive, particularly the attendance of two counsel and the time spent reviewing transcripts.

The court agreed that the hours claimed were excessive, the attendance of two counsel was unnecessary, and certain disbursements were not compensable.

Costs were fixed at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.