Brian Duxbury

The appellant, a tobacco manufacturer on the Six Nations reserve, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of the Minister of Finance's demand for security under section 12(2)(f.1) of the Tobacco Tax Act.

The appellant manufactured tobacco for export and for sale on First Nations reserves, neither of which were subject to Ontario's tobacco tax.

The appellant argued the Minister's interpretation of the security requirement was unreasonable and that the provision was unconstitutional as an indirect tax on exported goods.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the Minister's interpretation reasonable and the provision constitutionally valid as incidental to a valid direct taxation scheme.

The appellant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's failure to disclose numerous criminal convictions, regulatory offences, and unpaid judgments on his renewal applications, as well as concerns regarding his financial responsibility and past conduct.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's current financial position, comprehensive history of non-compliance with the law, and repeated false statements on renewal applications justified revocation under section 10(1) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request to maintain his registration with conditions, concluding that conditions would not sufficiently address the multi-faceted concerns and the risk of future non-disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the revocation.

The applicant, a tobacco manufacturer, challenged the Minister of Finance's demand for security under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The applicant argued that because its products were sold exclusively to on-reserve First Nations retailers and for export, they were not subject to Ontario tax, and thus no security could be demanded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the plain language of s. 12(2)(f.1) of the Act requires the Minister to demand security for unmarked fine cut tobacco as if it were destined for taxable sale, to protect against the risk of product diversion.

The court also found the Minister's decision to reduce the required security amount was reasonable.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim order suspending the applicants' mortgage brokerage and broker licences pending a proposal to revoke them.

The applicants sought to bring a motion to lift or stay the interim order.

The Superintendent raised a jurisdictional objection.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that it lacked the express or implied statutory authority under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 or the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997 to lift or stay an interim suspension order pending a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed an Environmental Compliance Approval issued to the instrument holder for sewage works at a motel.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing the reconsideration of certain variables, the parties agreed to revisions to the approval.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendments satisfied its previous order, allowed the appeal in part, and ordered the Director to amend the approval accordingly, lifting the automatic stay.

The debtor executed an irrevocable direction instructing its law firm to disburse an anticipated tax refund to three creditors, including the law firm itself.

A judgment creditor subsequently served a notice of garnishment on the law firm in respect of the tax refund.

The law firm disbursed the funds according to the irrevocable direction rather than paying the judgment creditor.

The motion judge found the law firm should have followed the garnishment procedure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the tax refund was not a garnishable debt owed by the law firm to the debtor, and therefore the notice of garnishment had no effect.

This was an amended costs endorsement and directions decision arising from a prior trial judgment involving fraud-related allegations, counterclaims, and title issues concerning a business property.

The court proceeded in the absence of one defendant, corrected typographical errors in the earlier reasons, confirmed the principal judgment amount, and fixed prejudgment and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The self-represented plaintiff was awarded $100,000 inclusive in substantial indemnity costs against one opposing party for the action and counterclaim, with compensation for his own time at an hourly rate.

No costs were awarded as between the plaintiff and one defendant, but substantial indemnity costs of $75,000 were awarded against the plaintiff in favour of another defendant based on Rule 49 and an earlier offer to settle.

The court also gave directions concerning the form of a title transfer order, future assessment proceedings, potential sale steps, and settlement of the formal judgment.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a business agreement to build and operate a wood-drying kiln.

The plaintiff advanced funds for construction, while the defendant contributed land.

The plaintiff sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and conversion, alleging the defendant lied about his experience, grossly overstated the land's value, failed to account for construction costs, and wrongfully transferred the business property to his own holding company.

The court found the defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations and fundamentally breached the agreement.

The court granted rescission, ordering the defendant to pay restitution of the plaintiff's advanced funds, plus punitive damages for his atrocious conduct.

Claims against the real estate agent were dismissed, while the company's lawyer was found to have breached his duty by facilitating the wrongful property transfer.

The appellant appealed the terms and conditions of an Environmental Compliance Approval for sewage works.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the Tribunal issued a procedural order regarding written and oral closing submissions and a site visit.

The Tribunal ordered a perimeter walk of the site without requiring attendees to sign liability waivers or non-disclosure agreements.

The appellant sought to adjourn its motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The appellant discovered that a witness who testified at the Board hearing had previously made a presentation to Board members, prompting the appellant to commence an application for judicial review regarding procedural fairness.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that it would be an inefficient use of court resources to hear the leave to appeal motion when the underlying decision could potentially be declared a nullity through the judicial review application.

Following an application concerning the seizure of cigarettes under the Tobacco Tax Act, the applicant succeeded on a Charter challenge under s. 8 and obtained a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter requiring the return of seized cigarettes or payment of their value.

However, the respondents succeeded on the statutory interpretation issues under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The court considered costs pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Exercising its discretion to allocate costs by issue, the court declined to award costs for the statutory issues and limited recovery to the Charter portion of the proceeding.

An all‑inclusive costs award of $50,000 was ordered.

A tobacco manufacturer sought declarations that a shipment of unmarked cigarettes seized by authorities under the Tobacco Tax Act was unlawfully seized and that it had a right to possess the tobacco.

The court found that the warrantless search and seizure of a delivery vehicle violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the detention and search occurred without reasonable and probable grounds and because the authorized official improperly directed police remotely.

Although the court held that the applicant’s operations demonstrated substantial non‑compliance with the Tobacco Tax Act and its permit conditions, the Charter breach justified a remedy.

The court ordered the return of the seized cigarettes belonging to the applicant or compensation for their value if they had deteriorated.

The respondents were entirely successful in the appeals and settled their costs with the appellant Molson Sport & Entertainment Inc. They sought costs from the appellant Jonathan Vrozos, who took no position.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents payable by Vrozos in the amount of $49,768.00.

The appellants, Molson and Vrozos, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for intentional interference with economic relations, breach of contract, and fraud arising from the sale of exclusive water rights at a large concert.

Molson had sold exclusive water rights to Vrozos, who then sold them to the respondents.

Molson subsequently allowed other vendors to sell water and forced the respondents to supply free water to meet health requirements.

Vrozos also made unauthorized side deals and misappropriated funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability and the award of punitive damages against Vrozos, correcting only the method of calculating damages against Molson and dismissing Vrozos's crossclaim against Molson for a management fee.

The applicants, comprising twelve female employees of the Hamilton Police Service, the Hamilton Police Services Board, and the Chief of Police, sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision.

The Hearing Officer had quashed a Notice of Hearing containing twenty-four charges of police misconduct, including sexual harassment, against the respondent police officer due to a failure to serve the notice within the six-month statutory period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that none of the applicants had standing.

The court held that the female employees were barred by the Police Services Act from bringing a complaint against a fellow officer, and that binding appellate authority precluded the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board from seeking judicial review of a disciplinary decision they could not directly appeal.

The appellant appealed an order denying his application to amend his counterclaim to add a claim for specific performance.

The motion judge had refused the amendment without explanation, stating the claim was untenable, and failed to reference Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondents' arguments regarding prejudice and election of remedies were matters for trial, not grounds to deny the amendment.

The appeal was allowed, and leave to amend was granted.

The applicant police association sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the employer's policy of transferring disabled uniformed officers into civilian bargaining unit positions to accommodate them.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding it unreasonable and incorrect in law.

The Court held that the arbitrator failed to properly apply the individualized duty to accommodate, as he did not first consider whether the specific officers could be accommodated within their own bargaining unit without undue hardship before infringing on the civilian collective agreement rights.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal and a motion for leave to appeal from an order granting interim relief in an oppression action under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory, meaning leave to appeal was required.

The Court further held that under s. 249 of the CBCA, appeals from interlocutory orders lie to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted, but the motion to quash the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of one count of neglect of duty and two counts of deceit, which resulted in his dismissal.

The charges stemmed from allegations that he malingered on calls, made false statements to his supervisor about his activities, and destroyed a computer disk containing records.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the malingering charge, noting the hearing officer accepted the officer's logs showing he was patrolling.

The Commission also found no evidence of intent to mislead regarding the statements, and concluded the destruction of the computer disk was done in accordance with established police practice.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for neglect of duty and deceit, as well as the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the finding of malingering, noting a contradiction in the Hearing Officer's conclusions regarding the officer's notes.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent to mislead for the deceit charges, and that the officer had a lawful excuse for destroying a computer disk in accordance with established practice.