Arlen K. Sternberg

The appellant, an environmental advocacy group, appealed decisions of the Ontario Energy Board granting leave to construct four natural gas projects.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by denying its requests to file proposed survey and expert evidence and to convene a technical conference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test by balancing the probative value of the evidence against regulatory efficiency.

Applying the Baker factors, the Court held that the appellant, as an intervenor, was owed a duty of fairness at the lower end of the spectrum, and the Board's procedural choices did not amount to a denial of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Enbridge Gas Inc.'s appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's finding that the 1957 franchise agreement between Enbridge and the County of Essex had not expired under the rule against perpetuities.

The court found that the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) erred in law by misapplying the rule against perpetuities, focusing on the duration of the right rather than the vesting of the interest.

The court also held that the Divisional Court was not bound by its earlier decision in Dawn-Euphemia and that the OEB could not impose a new franchise agreement unless the existing one had lapsed or was about to lapse.

The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision approving the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.

The municipality objected to a standard cost-sharing provision for pipeline relocation, arguing it conflicted with section 26 of the Drainage Act, which would otherwise require the utility to pay 100% of relocation costs caused by drainage works.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB had broad, exclusive statutory authority under the Municipal Franchises Act to prescribe the terms of the franchise renewal in the public interest, and did not err in law or exceed its jurisdiction by imposing the standard cost-sharing terms.

The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision that approved the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.

The OEB had found that the original 1957 franchise agreement expired by operation of the common law rule against perpetuities and ordered a renewal based on the OEB's Model Franchise Agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the OEB had jurisdiction to decide the issue, it erred in law by finding the agreement expired.

The Court determined that the utility's rights under the 1957 agreement were vested, not future contingent interests, and therefore the rule against perpetuities did not apply.

The defendants brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 25.11, arguing they were irrelevant and scandalous.

The plaintiff's claim was based on the common employer doctrine, alleging the defendants were his employers despite his contract being with an insolvent related corporation.

The court struck paragraphs solely related to the plaintiff's employment qualifications and performance, finding them irrelevant to the common employer determination.

However, the court allowed most other impugned paragraphs to stand, including those detailing corporate structure, operations, and post-termination events leading to the original employer's insolvency, deeming them relevant to the common employer analysis and the potential for unfairness to the employee.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination because accessible seating for Toronto Blue Jays games could not be purchased online in 2016.

The respondents subsequently changed their policy to allow online purchases and brought a request to dismiss the applications as moot.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applications were not moot because the policy change did not address the alleged past discrimination and the applicant had not received the remedies sought, including public interest remedies and monetary compensation.

The applicant in a disability discrimination case requested wide-ranging production of documents from the respondents regarding complaints and lawsuits about fraudulent purchases of accessible seating tickets.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it disproportionate to the one-day hearing scheduled and noting that the information could be elicited through cross-examination.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal that confirmed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project on Amherst Island.

The appellant raised nine issues, including the admission of expert evidence, consideration of mitigation measures outside the approval, factual findings regarding wildlife, and a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's evidentiary and procedural decisions were reasonable exercises of its discretion and statutory authority.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's factual findings or admit fresh evidence aimed at challenging those findings, as appeals to the court are strictly limited to questions of law under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Due to the complexity of the hearing and numerous motions, the statutory six-month deadline for disposition was approaching.

The Tribunal ordered an adjournment on its own initiative, with the consent of the Appellant and Director, to allow sufficient time to deliberate and write its decision.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered an adjournment of the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Amherst Island Wind Project for a period of 19 days.

The date of deemed confirmation of the approval was extended accordingly.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The plaintiff, a senior executive employed for approximately 14 months, sought damages for unpaid compensation allegedly owed under an employment agreement, including a relocation payment, termination pay, a retention bonus, and an annual incentive program payment.

The court interpreted the relocation clause using the contractual interpretation principles articulated in Sattva and held the plaintiff had not moved his primary residence to Toronto, as he maintained his family home and tax residency in the United States while commuting.

The court also rejected arguments that termination and bonus provisions were void for potential violations of the Employment Standards Act, finding no actual or possible statutory breach in the circumstances.

Because the plaintiff had mitigated his losses and was not actively employed on the relevant payout dates, he was not entitled to the claimed payments.

All claims were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 9-turbine wind facility on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, shadow flicker, and safety risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, including groundwater and bird species at risk.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus of proving the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act, relying on the expert evidence provided by the approval holder.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision confirmed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed its request for an increase in its chicken processing quota.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual determination regarding the date of rebasing was supported by evidence and reasonable.

The Court also held that the applicant could not rely on a contract it had expressly abandoned before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal was not required to provide reasons for declining to depart from its usual policies.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

One appellant subsequently proposed to withdraw its appeal with the consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed that appeal.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to an environmental coalition in the remaining appeal and issued procedural directions for the hearing.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's refusal ruling made during examinations for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action involving a senior trading employee.

The appeal challenged the Master's refusal to compel answers to certain discovery questions and requests for document production, including historical trading records, settlement negotiation materials, metadata, bonus pool information, and board approval materials for a deferred payment plan.

Applying the proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the requested production would be disproportionate or irrelevant and that the Master made no palpable or overriding error.

The court emphasized deference to Masters on discovery matters and reaffirmed that proportionality governs the scope of discovery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a chicken processing facility, appealed a decision of the provincial chicken farming regulator denying its request for 286,553 kilograms of calculated base.

The appellant argued it had the closest connection to historical inter-provincial chicken supply purchases made by a former processor, and was therefore entitled to the calculated base under the regulator's policy.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a licensed processor with a calculated base at the time of the regulatory re-basing, and therefore did not qualify for the allocation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought declarations regarding its contractual rights to historical interprovincial chicken supply quotas purchased from another processor.

The respondent brought a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and the matter should be determined by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) under its comprehensive regulatory scheme.

The court agreed, finding that the substance of the dispute concerned quota allocation, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFO and its administrative appeal process.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The appellant racetrack owner refused to permit the respondent to race his horses at its tracks unless he signed an access agreement.

The respondent refused and sought a declaration from the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) that he could not be required to sign the agreement.

The ORC dismissed the application, but the Divisional Court found the ORC's decision unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the ORC's decision was reasonable, as the access agreement did not deny the respondent an opportunity to be heard before the ORC, nor did it give the appellant absolute unfettered power to arbitrarily exclude him.

The appeal was allowed and the ORC's decision restored.