Andrea Gonsalves

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission that reinstated the original results of a horse race, overturning a prior decision by the track Stewards regarding interference.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness due to lack of notice, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and challenged the tribunal's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that actual notice was established, there was no evidence of bias, and the tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal and a motion in the Superior Court.

The court ordered that the appellant, the Attorney General of Canada, be awarded costs in the cause in both courts, fixed at a total amount of $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs sued Canada in the Superior Court of Justice, alleging complicity in their torture by foreign governments and Charter violations.

Canada redacted disclosed documents under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, claiming privilege on national security grounds, and applied to the Federal Court to confirm the prohibition on disclosure.

The plaintiffs moved in the Superior Court for unredacted production, arguing s. 38 unconstitutionally deprived the Superior Court of its core jurisdiction under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 38 is constitutionally valid at the pre-trial stage because pre-trial discovery against the Crown did not exist at Confederation, and set aside the motion judge's declaration regarding s. 38's validity at trial as premature.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal refusing to renew his registration as a real estate broker.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had participated in a mortgage fraud scheme by providing false appraisals, and concluded he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider imposing conditions on his license and by drawing an adverse inference from his initial exercise of his right to silence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision to revoke the license without conditions was reasonable given the egregious nature of the fraud, and that the Tribunal properly considered the timing of the appellant's cooperation in assessing his rehabilitation.

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (MFN) appealed the dismissal of its action claiming a 35% share of net profits from Casino Rama.

MFN argued that its selection as the host site for the casino created a binding contract with Ontario based on its submitted proposal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the site selection process did not constitute a binding tender or RFP process for revenue sharing, and that revenue sharing was intended to be negotiated separately among all First Nations.

The Court also rejected MFN's arguments regarding breach of fiduciary duty, misapprehension of the Aboriginal context, and reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's interventions.

The Standardbred licensee appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and Notice of Proposed Order suspending his license for 10 years and fining him $40,000 after one of his horses tested positive for Darbepoetin-alpha (DPO).

The appellant challenged the scientific and forensic validity of the testing methodology used by the Pennsylvania Equine Toxicology & Research Laboratory (PETRL).

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found the PETRL methodology to be scientifically and forensically valid, confirmed the 10-year suspension, and increased the fine to $60,000 due to the horse's high racing status and earnings.

Hahn Investment applied for a hearing and review of a decision by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) refusing to vary or cancel certain trades in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) made on October 14, 2008.

Hahn Investment argued the trades were unreasonable due to significant divergence between the underlying values of the indices and the traded prices.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding that IIROC correctly applied its policies and procedures, did not overlook material evidence, and that new evidence regarding the underlying security of one ETF was not compelling enough to change the outcome.

The Commission emphasized the need for deference to SRO decisions, particularly those involving technical expertise and time-sensitive market rulings.

Following the release of the court's reasons, counsel for the appellants requested a reconsideration of the costs of the applications, noting that the appellants were not separately represented as stated in the reasons.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum acknowledging the error but declined to reconsider the costs disposition, finding it remained appropriate because separate applications had been brought.

The appellants, former officers of a local union, were disciplined by an independent hearing officer pursuant to the union's constitution.

The union sought to enforce the hearing officer's decisions as arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application judge granted the enforcement, finding that the union constitution constituted an arbitration agreement.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the internal disciplinary proceedings were not arbitrations and the union constitution was not an arbitration agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the enforcement applications were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding pre- and post-judgment interest at a compounded rate of 5.59% semi-annually for breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant knew the funds would be reinvested to earn a compound return was supported by the evidence.

The court affirmed that compound interest is an appropriate measure of damages where the parties knew or should have known the disputed money would bear compound interest.