Barbara Conway

The appellant employee appealed a summary judgment dismissing his wrongful dismissal action against the respondent employer.

The appellant was terminated without cause after less than six months of employment and claimed he was induced to leave his previous secure job.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the appellant was bound by a clear six-month probation clause in his signed employment offer, which negated any claim of inducement.

The court also found no bad faith, concluding the employer provided a fair opportunity for the appellant to demonstrate his suitability during the probationary period.

The appellant, a 50% shareholder in a corporation, brought an oppression application against his brother, the other 50% shareholder, regarding the sale and lease-back of the corporation's real estate.

The appellant appealed two motion decisions: one dismissing his claim for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and another denying an injunction to halt the sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that the shareholder dispute did not give rise to an interest in land to support a CPL, and that the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in applying the RJR-MacDonald test to deny the injunction.

The court noted the purchaser could rely on the indoor management rule and the appellant's claim was readily quantifiable in damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, who had refused to quash the defendant's appeal of an order dismissing a motion to discharge construction liens.

The panel held that the original order dismissing the motion to discharge the liens was interlocutory, not final, because it did not finally determine the validity of the liens, which remained an issue for trial.

The motion was granted, the single judge's order was set aside, and the appeal was quashed.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by a delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's ruling that the respondent insured's claim for income replacement benefits was not statute-barred.

The insurer conceded that its notice of denial did not meet the strict requirements set out in Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, but argued that the delegate should have applied a contextual approach rather than a bright-line test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the delegate reasonably applied the bright-line test from Smith.

The court noted that the Court of Appeal in Golic confirmed that the analysis must focus on the notice itself, precluding consideration of outside circumstances to relieve an insurer of its obligation to provide proper notice.

Following an appeal regarding reduced security under the Construction Lien Act, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant was awarded $7,000 in partial indemnity costs for a successful stay motion.

The respondent, having been successful on the main appeal, was awarded $15,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The appellant tenant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay the respondent landlord for lost rent after he unilaterally terminated a residential lease.

The tenant claimed the unit was not fit for habitation due to the presence of mold spores detected by an ERMI test, which posed a risk to his daughter who suffered from mold toxicity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's contextual application of the 'fit for habitation' test under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court upheld the finding that the tenant breached the lease by terminating it without giving the landlord an opportunity to investigate or remediate the alleged mold issue.

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement to correct an accidental slip in its previous reasons for judgment dismissing the applicant's application.

The court amended paragraph 34 of the reasons pursuant to Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to accurately reflect that the agreement as to costs was between the applicant and the University of Toronto, not the union.

The applicant was ordered to pay agreed costs of $8,000 to the University.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The union had withdrawn five of his six grievances regarding his termination and settled the final one.

The Board dismissed the complaint following a consultation process, finding the union acted reasonably and honestly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Board's process was procedurally fair and its decision was reasonable, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant contractor appealed a motion judge's order vacating its construction lien upon the respondent owner posting security in an amount significantly less than the lien claim.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by resolving complex factual issues regarding unapproved change orders and an extended duration claim on a summary motion under s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the law by reducing security only where the evidence failed to establish a reasonable basis for the amounts claimed, though it varied the order to correct a conceded mathematical error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a College committee's decision regarding an emergency physician's conduct.

The physician had begun completing a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act after the applicant staged a suicide attempt, but stopped when the applicant admitted it was faked.

The applicant sought the unconditional removal of the incomplete Form 1 from his hospital chart.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as the Personal Health Information Protection Act does not grant patients the right to demand the destruction of their medical records.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found him incompetent, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered him to pay costs.

The Committee found the appellant had failed to maintain the standard of practice, engaged in professional misconduct by falsifying patient charts, and lacked insight into his deficiencies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's findings on incompetence, the penalty of revocation, and the costs award were reasonable and supported by the evidentiary record.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision certifying a bargaining unit for construction labourers.

The applicants argued the OLRB erred by excluding post-application date evidence regarding the composition of the bargaining unit and by finding that the two individuals working on the application date were their employees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB reasonably applied the statutory framework and its established policy of determining bargaining rights based on the date of application, and reasonably concluded the individuals were employees of the applicants.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that granted a travel pay benefit to social workers travelling to satellite clinics.

The hospital argued it was denied procedural fairness and that the award was unreasonable due to insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the summary process under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act provided adequate procedural fairness.

The court also held that the arbitrator's reasons, when read with the record, adequately explained the decision to award a compromise benefit based on replication principles, rendering the outcome reasonable.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision finding that its failure to provide compliant notices denying treatment plans under s. 38 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule precluded it from relying on the Minor Injury Guideline limits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator reasonably interpreted s. 38(11) to mean that a non-compliant notice requires the insurer to pay for the goods and services in the specific treatment plan without the $3500 limit applying, until a compliant notice is given.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that the respondent was involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent was injured while 'car surfing' on the rear bumper of a moving vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the adjudicator's application of the purpose test.

The court found that while reckless, the vehicle was being used for its normal purpose of transportation, and thus the incident constituted an accident.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $16,215.95 for the early termination of a vehicle lease agreement.

At trial, the appellant claimed he did not sign the lease agreement and had an oral agreement that no penalty would apply for early return.

The Deputy Judge found as a fact that the appellant had signed the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Deputy Judge's factual findings and credibility determinations were entitled to deference and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant HVAC rental company appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to return $17,334.09 to the respondent consumer.

The consumer had been forced to pay the amount to discharge liens registered against his home when he sold it, pursuant to a 10-year rental contract.

The trial judge found the buyout and lien provisions were onerous terms in a contract of adhesion that had not been brought to the consumer's attention, applying the Tilden principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee decision dismissing allegations against a member and his professional corporation.

The Committee found it lacked jurisdiction over the corporation's conduct prior to it obtaining a Certificate of Authorization, and dismissed allegations against the member regarding failure to complete contracted work due to insufficient evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's interpretation of its home statute regarding pre-licensure jurisdiction was reasonable and correct, and its factual findings regarding the scope of the contract were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Securities Commission decision finding they committed securities fraud and traded without registration.

They argued the panel breached procedural fairness by denying an adjournment, violated their Charter rights by admitting compelled testimony, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjournment refusal was reasonable, the proceedings were administrative rather than criminal so Charter protections did not apply to the compelled statements, and the panel's reasons were sufficient and correctly applied the Securities Act to a sole proprietorship.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that reduced the City's recovery of fraudulently obtained health benefits from a former employee by 50%.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding a denial of procedural fairness because the arbitrator rejected the application of the collective agreement's overpayment provision without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The Court also found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, as she erred in finding concurrent jurisdiction with the courts and misapplied the Negligence Act to reduce the recovery based on the employee's theoretical right to seek contribution from a co-fraudster.