Alison Harvison Young

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed applications by the unions to eliminate different rates of progression through the wage grids of comparable male and female job classes, holding that the Pay Equity Act does not require the harmonization of wage grids.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that its interpretation of the Act authorized a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and that the Pay Equity Act does not require or authorize a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the respondent law firm sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of over $29,000.

The appellant, who was self-represented, sought costs of $3,000 to $4,000 despite being unsuccessful.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the respondent but significantly reduced the quantum to $2,000.

The court noted that the respondent's counsel invested excessive time, sought an unjustifiably high rate, and had previously been criticized by other judges for unprofessional conduct and impaired judgment in acting for his own firm.

The Divisional Court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.

The respondent law firm sought costs of up to $29,532.91 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the respondent's counsel had invested excessive time in the matter and sought compensation at an unjustifiably high rate, particularly given previous judicial criticism of his conduct.

Considering the lack of complexity and brief attendance required, the court fixed costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $2,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying him an extension of time to request a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The appellant had missed the 15-day deadline by three days.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the LAT's decision, finding that the LAT reasonably applied the Frey v. Macdonald factors, including the lack of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the lack of merit to the appeal.

The applicant's motion to set aside a judgment quashing his application for judicial review was previously dismissed.

The court determined costs for that motion.

The Attorney General of Canada sought full indemnity costs, while the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $14,000 to the Attorney General and $7,000 to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Ottawa's Senate Appeals Committee dismissing him from the neurosurgery residency program for unprofessional and disruptive behaviour.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness, the decision was unreasonable, and his Charter right to freedom of expression was violated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeals Committee's de novo hearing cured any earlier procedural defects, the decision to dismiss was reasonable given the applicant's pattern of inflammatory emails and absenteeism, and the Charter did not apply to the university's internal academic disciplinary process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision dismissing its application to review an IIROC Hearing Panel's refusal to stay proceedings.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction and could not provide procedural fairness because it lacked the power to compel non-member witnesses, which would prevent the applicant from making full answer and defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the stay motion was premature, as any prejudice regarding missing evidence is best assessed during the hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, brought a motion to vary an order that quashed his affidavit filed in support of an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion in part, finding that the motions judge erred in striking portions of the affidavit that went to an essential finding of fact regarding anti-union animus and alleged denials of procedural fairness.

The court reinstated specific paragraphs of the affidavit while upholding the exclusion of the remainder.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal had confirmed an overpayment of $3,050 against the respondent but ordered the Director to collect only half of it at $10 per month due to financial hardship.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an overpayment is a debt due to the Crown and neither the Director nor the Tribunal has the statutory authority to forgive any part of it.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed five individual grievances concerning post-age 65 retirement benefits.

The arbitrator had upheld the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the issues had already been decided in a prior policy grievance arbitration and were barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to address its new arguments regarding age discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's application of res judicata and abuse of process was reasonable, as the union could have raised the human rights arguments during the initial policy grievance.

The appellant solicitor appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $25,000 plus interest to his former client for professional negligence.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in law regarding causation when finding there was a reasonable prospect of setting aside an order dismissing the client's counterclaim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were fully supported by the record and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error.

The applicant, a former unionized employee discharged for cause, sought to set aside a single judge's order quashing her application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The single judge had quashed the application on the basis that an individual unionized employee lacks standing to seek judicial review of an arbitration award absent exceptional circumstances.

The Divisional Court panel found that the single judge correctly applied the law and that there was no evidence of deficiency in the union's representation to warrant an exception.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of discrimination against a Children's Aid Society and its employees, as well as the Tribunal's refusal to reconsider the decision.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on sex, family status, and disability (Multiple Sclerosis) arising from a child access dispute and a request for a mental health assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, there was no denial of procedural fairness, and no reasonable apprehension of bias was established.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $30,213 on a second mortgage.

They argued the trial judge made inconsistent factual findings regarding a $33,000 mortgage commission and erred in enforcing the mortgage despite the respondent being an unlicensed lender in breach of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the factual findings and holding that a breach of the Act does not render the underlying contract a nullity.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed grievances filed by the respondent union.

The arbitrator had found that employees laid off for more than 35 weeks could concurrently elect to receive severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and claim retirement benefits under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding her interpretation of the collective agreement and treatment of arbitral jurisprudence to be intelligible, transparent, and justified.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Superintendent of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario refusing to stay discipline proceedings against him for delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that judicial review of interim administrative decisions is generally refused absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of procedural fairness that would justify intervening before the hearing on the merits.

The appellants, plaintiffs in a certified class action alleging abuse at a residential school, appealed a motion judge's order granting the respondents leave to issue third-party claims for contribution and indemnity against the students' parents and guardians.

The appellants argued that the third-party claims were legally untenable because they had limited their claims to the several liability of the respondents.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Taylor v. Canada, holding that where a plaintiff limits their negligence claim to damages caused solely by the defendant, there is no right to claim contribution and indemnity.

Furthermore, liability for breach of fiduciary duty is not subject to apportionment.

The order permitting the third-party claims was set aside.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to pay the tenant $11,000 for disposed property and $3,000 for stress damages following an eviction.

The Divisional Court upheld the property damages, finding ample evidence that the landlord breached its obligation under s. 41(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to make the tenant's possessions available within 72 hours.

However, the court set aside the $3,000 award for stress damages, as it was not claimed by the tenant and awarding it without notice breached procedural fairness.

The appellant owner appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor $62,983.84 for unpaid construction work.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to allow documentary evidence for its counterclaim for lost rental income and by finding the contract was a unit price contract rather than a fixed price contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had not sought to introduce the documentary evidence at trial and the trial judge properly interpreted the contract documents.

The judgment was varied only to add post-judgment interest.

The appellant appealed an order finding him estopped from objecting to legal accounts paid by the Estate Trustee.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred by determining the substantive issue of estoppel during a first appearance for a motion for directions, depriving him of the opportunity to present evidence.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the motions judge should have resolved the conflict respecting the draft orders giving directions rather than deciding the substantive issue.

The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was referred back to the Estates List.