Barbara Conway

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

The applicant alleged bias and bad faith by a union representative who refused to seek judicial review of a dismissed grievance.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision reasonable, noting no evidence of bias or bad faith.

The court also dismissed allegations of procedural fairness and bias against the Board Vice-Chair, finding the consultation process was permitted under the Labour Relations Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the union.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application to evict a tenant for the landlord's own use under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlords intended for their son, a university student in London, to occupy the Toronto unit on weekends and during the summer for five years.

The Board found this occasional occupation did not constitute 'residential occupation'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation and application of the statutory condition was reasonable.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a previous Divisional Court decision dismissing her application for judicial review of a WSIAT decision.

She alleged fresh evidence of fraud based on a prior Tribunal decision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was an abuse of process and vexatious, as the issue had already been decided in previous proceedings.

Full indemnity costs of $5,500 were awarded against the applicant.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding her claim for attendant care benefits was statute-barred.

Following a 2005 motor vehicle accident, the insurer denied her claim for attendant care benefits without requiring a Form 1 assessment.

The appellant did not dispute the denial until 2015, after her condition deteriorated and she was deemed catastrophically impaired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator reasonably concluded the 2005 denial was clear and unequivocal, thereby triggering the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an Adjudicator with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, which found that the Toronto Police Service had conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to his access request.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of gang stalking and mind control, and argued that the police failed to produce records documenting these activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the Adjudicator's decision, no breach of procedural fairness, and declining to consider Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it liable for wrongful dismissal and awarding the respondent employee damages.

The employee, a casino dealer, suffered a permanent workplace injury and was placed on modified duties for two years before being terminated for frustration of contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the employment relationship was not restricted to the dealer position and that the employer failed to prove frustration of contract.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to reduce his child support obligations to zero.

The father argued he had quit his jobs due to mental illness and was now receiving ODSP.

The Divisional Court dismissed the father's motion to adduce fresh evidence from a psychiatrist, finding it would not have affected the result given the motion judge's factual findings that the father had voluntarily and strategically quit his jobs.

The Court upheld the motion judge's decision to impute income, finding no basis to interfere with the conclusion that there was no material change in circumstances.

The appellant rental car company appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent insurer was the first loss insurer for a motor vehicle accident involving a rental car.

The driver of the rental car was a listed driver, but not a named insured, under her father's standard Ontario Automobile Policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under the clear terms of the policy, rental vehicle coverage is only available to the named insured or their spouse.

Because coverage was not available to the listed driver, the priority provisions of s. 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act were not triggered, and the rental company's insurer was liable.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy under section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act following the termination of her employment as a superintendent.

The tenant argued she was denied natural justice and that the Board erred in law by finding an employment relationship and failing to consider section 83(3) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, that the Board sufficiently considered the statutory provisions, and that the finding of an employment relationship was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her application for social assistance under the Ontario Works Act, 1997.

The appellant's spousal support payments were being garnished 100% by the Family Responsibility Office to repay an overpayment of child support.

The Administrator determined that the garnished spousal support payments constituted income because they were made on behalf of or for the benefit of the appellant to reduce her debt.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's interpretation of the clear and unambiguous statutory provisions to be reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant's motion to set aside a previous Divisional Court order under Rule 59.06 was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The successful respondents and intervenors sought costs.

The applicant argued against a costs award, citing impecuniosity and public interest.

The court rejected the public interest argument but considered impecuniosity in determining the quantum.

The Attorney General and the Justices of the Peace Review Council were awarded $7,500 each on a partial indemnity basis.

The intervenors, the applicant's former counsel, were awarded $23,000 on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's reprehensible conduct in making unfounded allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination and reprisal against a volunteer model aviation club.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant was removed from his position due to interpersonal conflict, not age, and that he pursued the complaint in bad faith, disentitling him to protection from reprisal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing his complaints against his union and its president for alleged breaches of the duty of fair representation and intimidation.

The applicant alleged the union president told the college president to fire him after the applicant raised concerns about the union's workplace culture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the applicant suffered no actual prejudice in his employment relationship.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding the respondent's entitlement to attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The LAT had found that the respondent's personal support worker did not need to prove economic loss, as she was providing services in the course of her ordinary employment, even though she was hired after the accident.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the LAT's interpretation of the SABS is reasonableness.

The Court found the LAT's interpretation of s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) to be reasonable and consistent with the legislative intent to prevent abuse by unqualified family members, rather than to bar legitimate services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy and requiring them to pay $24,351.50 for mould damage.

The Board found the appellants negligently caused the mould by maintaining a hot and humid environment despite warnings from the landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the damage was reasonably foreseeable and that the Board's reasons were adequate.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction after police found a loaded firearm and drugs in her unit, which were possessed by her son.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by relying on hearsay evidence and misapplying the eviction and relief provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reliance on hearsay was permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the tenant's arguments raised unreviewable questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a Master dismissing their action for delay following a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The litigation, which commenced in 2000, involved allegations of mortgage mismanagement by the defendants.

The Master found an unacceptable explanation for at least seven years of delay, primarily related to document scanning, and concluded that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to the unavailability of key witnesses.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's contextual analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for persistently failing to pay rent on time.

The tenant sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the Board erred in law by refusing to consider the landlord's conduct under section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act and by denying her natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence as it did not meet the Palmer test.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as section 82 did not apply to a termination under section 58, and the Board had provided procedural fairness and properly exercised its discretion under section 83.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel finding he engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a 15-year-old patient.

The appellant argued the Panel misapprehended the evidence by failing to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, improperly considering post-incident conduct, and applying unequal scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace removed from office for misconduct, brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside a previous Divisional Court order that had dismissed his judicial review application.

The applicant argued he was denied a fair hearing and alleged ineffective assistance by his former counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation and finding that the applicant's complaints did not fit within the narrow exceptions of Rule 59.06 for fraud or newly discovered facts.