Brendan van Niejenhuis

The applicant sought an order of mandamus compelling the City of Toronto to issue notices of rent reduction to tenants of 29 residential complexes, following a reduction in municipal property taxes.

The City admitted it failed to provide the notices within the prescribed time under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mandamus, finding that issuing the notices years late could mislead tenants, as the one-year limitation period to claim a rent reduction had already expired.

The court also declined to grant a declaration of the City's statutory breach, as it would have no practical effect, but allowed a motion to add a tenant as a party.

Class counsel appealed an order fixing their fees at $6.3 million plus GST, which was approximately half the amount agreed upon in their contingency fee agreements.

The motion judge had reduced the base fee by 25% and applied a multiplier of 2.6, finding the requested $12 million fee excessive in relation to the $40 million settlement recovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge applied the proper test, considered all relevant factors, and made no palpable and overriding error in determining a fair and reasonable fee.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Professional Development & Competency Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which found that the accommodations granted to her for writing the bar admission examinations were adequate.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and natural justice, citing interruptions by the Chair, failure to consider her reply and medical evidence, and an alleged discriminatory policy change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had a full opportunity to make submissions, the Committee considered her evidence, and the accommodations granted were more than adequate.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision suspending his racing licenses for ten years and imposing a $20,000 fine for administering a performance-enhancing drug (EPO) to a horse.

The applicant argued his confession to investigators was involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the statement was admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and statutory compulsion, and that the common law confession rule and section 7 of the Charter did not apply to these administrative proceedings.

The court also upheld the penalty as reasonable given the need for general deterrence in the horse racing industry.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred driver, was fined and suspended by the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) for refusing to provide a urine sample and using abusive language.

After his appeals to the ORC and Divisional Court were dismissed, he sued the ORC and its investigator for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action based on issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised in the civil action were the same as those already decided by the ORC, and permitting the action to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission applied for judicial review of a Commission Panel's decision to exclude a statement made by the respondent licensee during an investigation into illegal drug use in horse racing.

The Panel had excluded the statement on the basis that the investigator wilfully deceived the respondent about his regulatory peril.

The Divisional Court found the Panel's decision unreasonable, as there was no evidentiary basis for the finding of wilful deceit, and quashed the decision, remitting the matter to the Commission for determination on the merits.

The applicant, a lawyer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission prohibiting him from appearing as counsel before it until he provided an unqualified apology for his conduct during a hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission's hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel had pre-judged the matter and prepared its reasons in advance.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively conducting a contempt hearing, a power reserved for the Divisional Court under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The matter was not remitted to the Commission, as the applicant's conduct had already been referred to the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The Ontario Racing Commission appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for misfeasance in public office, inducing breach of contract, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The liability arose after a Commission official informed a raceway that the respondent would not be approved as a starter, leading to his loss of employment, and the Commission subsequently frustrated his efforts to seek a hearing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability for misfeasance in public office, finding the Commission acted with reckless indifference to its statutory obligations by denying the respondent a hearing.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in finding liability for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations.

The appeal was dismissed and the damages award of $50,000 was upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission approving a reduced number of race days for two racetracks in 2007.

The applicant alleged a breach of procedural fairness and an error in denying it party status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, noting the applicant waited five months into the racing season to bring the application, which would cause substantial prejudice to the racetracks if the calendar were overturned.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission finding him liable for a strict liability drug offence involving a racehorse.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission failed to identify any evidence that the applicant's conduct fell below a reasonable standard of care.

The court noted that the Commission appeared to have improperly applied a standard of absolute liability rather than strict liability.

The respondent, a licensed driver and trainer, was disciplined by track judges for providing an improper urine sample.

He appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission, which held a hearing de novo.

At the hearing, the Commission allowed the senior track judge from the initial panel to testify.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, finding this created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the track judge had relevant factual evidence to give and his testimony did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the Commission Panel's ruling did not show preconceived views or give undue weight to his evidence.

Canada Post Corporation brought an application for an injunction to restrain the appellant from violating its exclusive privilege to collect and deliver international mail under section 14(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

The appellant argued that the Act provided a complete code with specific penalties, precluding civil proceedings, and raised equitable defences of laches, delay, and estoppel.

The Court of Appeal held that Canada Post has the right to seek an injunction to enforce its statutory privilege, as the penalty provisions alone are insufficient to protect its mandate.

The Court further held that equitable defences cannot be raised against a Crown agent to prevent the operation of a public policy statute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Canada obtained an evidence-gathering order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow a French expert to examine a collection of Rodin plasters held at an art centre.

The collectors appealed, arguing the order amounted to an unauthorized search and seizure.

The application judge made a sending order but attached conditions requiring the Crown to pay storage costs, indemnify the collectors for damage, and pay costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the collectors' appeal, finding jurisdiction for the evidence-gathering order.

However, the Court allowed the Crown's appeal, striking out the compensation and costs conditions as inconsistent with the general rule that costs are not awarded in criminal matters absent exceptional circumstances.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to the United States on charges related to a large-scale lottery fraud scheme, and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender decision.

The appellant argued that the requirement of double criminality was not met because his alleged conduct predated the relevant Criminal Code amendments, and challenged the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 29(4) of the Extradition Act, double criminality is assessed at the date of the Authority to Proceed.

The Court also found the evidence admissible and sufficient to justify committal, and upheld the Minister's surrender decision as reasonable.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) which reinstated a police officer who had been terminated by a Hearing Officer.

The officer, who developed a cocaine addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder while working undercover, had pled guilty to drug possession and disciplinary charges.

The employer and the officer had presented a joint submission on penalty proposing reinstatement with strict conditions, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of termination.

OCCPS found the Hearing Officer's decision unreasonable and substituted the joint submission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Chief of Police's appeal, holding that OCCPS correctly applied the reasonableness standard of review and reasonably concluded that the Hearing Officer ignored relevant evidence and the employer's duty to accommodate the officer's disability.

The appellant sued his insurer for a fire loss but was subsequently convicted of arson.

Despite having a legal opinion that his criminal appeal had merit, he agreed to settle the civil action by a consent dismissal without costs.

His criminal convictions were later quashed on appeal and the charges withdrawn.

He moved to set aside the civil settlement and consent order, arguing common mistake and fresh evidence.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation and noting that the appellant knew his appeal had merit when he chose to settle.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission disqualifying a horse for a positive drug test and suspending and fining its trainer.

The trainer argued the positive test resulted from contamination or an unknown metabolic process of a permitted drug, and that the Commission applied an absolute liability standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's rejection of the contamination theory was not patently unreasonable and that the trainer breached the standard of care by failing to keep adequate medical records.

The court also rejected the argument that the tribunal Chair's questioning of the trainer was unfair.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services that set aside a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct against a police officer.

The officer had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman while off-duty in the Dominican Republic.

The Hearing Officer found the complainant credible and ordered the officer dismissed.

The Commission overturned this decision, finding the complainant's evidence incredible.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Commission failed to apply the correct standard of review (reasonableness) and improperly substituted its own credibility findings for those of the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer's decision and penalty of dismissal were restored.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for fraud, awarding damages and punitive damages, and granting an oppression remedy.

The appellants operated a petroleum supply business that became insolvent.

They continued to order gasoline from the respondent without intending to pay, using the proceeds to pay themselves and their lawyers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of fraud and the compensatory damages of $539,658.41 for gasoline delivered after January 9, 1997.

However, the Court struck the oppression declaration, the $300,000 punitive damages award, and the order subordinating the appellants' secured claims, allowing the appeal in part.