Alison Harvison Young

During a judicial review proceeding, the court struck the applicant's affidavit from the record.

The court found that the affidavit contained argument and attempted to supplement the record before the Tribunal.

The applicant failed to satisfy the court that the affidavit fell within the exceptional circumstances set out in Keeprite that permit a party to file affidavit evidence to supplement the record.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board dismissing its Requests for Hearing regarding the removal of vascular ultrasound services from its licences.

The Board had dismissed the requests due to an inordinate 15-year delay causing prejudice, and found the requests moot because the appellant failed to comply with Minutes of Settlement that provided a mechanism to restore the services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and its application of the test for administrative delay correct.

The applicant Ministry sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the expansion of the urban boundary of the Town of Fort Erie.

The Board had found that a transitional regulation under the Places to Grow Act 2005 applied because a valid 'request' was made prior to June 16, 2006, even though supporting documentation was submitted later.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Board's interpretation of 'request' or its factual findings.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario imposing clinical supervision conditions on his practice, pending his application for judicial review.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court held that the financial cost of supervision did not amount to irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the College due to patient safety concerns.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion for directions regarding the admissibility of certain paragraphs in Dr. Chong's affidavit filed on a motion to stay.

The College argued that the paragraphs contained quality assurance information, which is protected under s. 83.1(6) of the Act.

The court agreed, ruling that the legislation does not permit quality assurance information to be referred to or treated as evidence.

The court excluded the paragraphs from evidence, noting that Dr. Chong's counsel could still refer to the information during argument as it was already in the record of proceedings.

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage during which they worked together in a successful band.

The applicant's health deteriorated due to multiple sclerosis, constituting a material change in circumstances from their separation agreement.

The applicant sought spousal support of approximately $1,400 per month, while the respondent argued for $700, citing the applicant's dissipation of her capital through gambling and poor financial decisions.

The court admitted Facebook receipts showing the applicant's online gambling, imputed $2,000 in investment income to her due to reckless dissipation of assets, and ordered the respondent to pay $1,000 per month in spousal support based on his transitional income and ongoing support of their adult children.

The appellant brought a medical malpractice claim in Small Claims Court against his former dentist.

After failing to produce a required expert report despite multiple orders, his claim was dismissed.

He subsequently sought an extension of time to appeal, which was denied by a motions judge.

A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed his motion to set aside the motions judge's order, finding no error in the conclusion that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension given the absence of an expert report.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions dismissing his complaints against his former employer, the TTC, and his union.

The TTC complaint was dismissed because the applicant had previously signed a settlement agreement releasing all claims, and the union complaint was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success due to a lack of particulars.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's procedures were fair and its decisions were reasonable.

The applicant, East Durham Wind, Inc., sought judicial review of two municipal by-laws enacted by the Municipality of West Grey that prevented the construction of a provincially approved wind energy project.

The applicant held a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) but required municipal entrance and oversize haulage permits.

The Divisional Court found that the municipal by-laws frustrated the purpose of the REA, which was to facilitate renewable energy projects under the Green Energy Act.

The court declared the by-laws inoperative to the extent of the conflict and ordered the municipality to reconsider the permit applications.

The appellant brought a motion to vary the order of the motion judge to grant a stay of the Tribunal's decision pending appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge offered no reasons regarding irreparable harm and thus his decision was not entitled to deference.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court found a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the member had practiced without restriction since 2005.

The motion was granted and a stay was ordered until the appeal hearing date.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union alleged the employer violated the statutory freeze period under s. 86 of the Labour Relations Act by reducing employee benefits after the applicant displaced the incumbent union.

The Board found that the employer's obligation was only to pay premiums to the incumbent union's trust fund, which became impossible upon displacement.

Applying the 'reasonable expectations' test, the Board concluded the employer's substituted benefit plan was reasonably comparable and did not violate s. 86.

The Divisional Court held the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent contractor $18,161 for home renovations.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting an annotated work report not served 30 days before trial and in finding the contract scope excluded a former restaurant attached to the home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Small Claims Court rules on document admission are enabling, not prohibitive, and that the trial judge's interpretation of the contract scope was supported by ample evidence.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to strike the respondents' claim for intentional interference with economic relations.

The appellants argued the claim lacked sufficient particulars regarding unlawful conduct, actionable conduct against third parties, and damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim and amended particulars provided sufficient material facts to allow the appellants to respond, and that the pleading adequately disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision upholding an Arbitrator's finding that the respondent suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The respondent had recorded a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 several days after a motor vehicle accident, which the insurer argued was confounded by medication and other injuries rather than brain impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review is reasonableness and that the SABS regulation uses the GCS score as a proxy measurement without requiring an inquiry into the patient's prognosis or the specific cause of the lowered score.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking various relief after the applicant mother unilaterally cancelled their daughter's First Communion and denied access.

The mother argued that the Minutes of Settlement were not enforceable because a formal order had not been taken out.

The court rejected this argument, finding the mother's conduct shocking and indicative of a systematic attempt to marginalize the father.

The court granted the father's requests to reschedule the Communion, ordered police enforcement for access, issued a non-disparagement order, permitted the father to provide the children with cell phones, ordered the mother to reimburse the father for the cancelled event's costs, and granted make-up access.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion for a stay of a case management direction pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The case management judge had ordered that the parties were not required to exchange affidavits of documents prior to a focused summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the three branches of the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court held there was no serious issue to be tried regarding the discretionary case management order, no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the action to move forward.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision upholding a master's order to strike paragraphs from his statement of claim.

The struck paragraphs referred to documents and information obtained during a public complaint process under the Police Services Act, which are deemed privileged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the registrar's dismissal for delay of his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appeal was from a Master's decision dismissing his motion to set aside the dismissal of his action for delay.

The court applied the factors from Paulsson v. University of Illinois and found that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden.

The delay in obtaining transcripts was not a valid excuse, and the justice of the case favoured the defendants given the history of delay and the weak merits of the appeal.

The motion was dismissed.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and evicting her for non-payment of rent.

She argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by denying her request for a third adjournment to summons a witness from Social Services, and that she did not owe the rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice as the tenant had previously been granted two adjournments and failed to comply with interim orders to produce evidence.

The Board's finding on the rent arrears was reasonable based on the landlord's uncontradicted ledger evidence.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order of $35,387.53 awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The motion judge had found their conduct in ignoring disclosure obligations to be reprehensible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's factual findings and discretionary costs award.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $4,500 payable by the moving parties.