Brockenshire

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral decision regarding a policy grievance on contracting out.

The arbitrator found that a worker provided by an agency was not an employee of the applicant, but nevertheless concluded by analogy that the worker could not work for the applicant for more than two weeks under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and effectively amended the collective agreement by creating a third class of worker.

The court held the decision was patently unreasonable as it conflicted with the express provision allowing contracting out.

The court issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an application.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within one month.

The court applied the principle that costs should follow the event and relied on the Boucher framework to ensure the award was fair, reasonable, and within the parties' reasonable expectations.

The applicant, a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court, sought judicial review of the senior regional judge's decision not to renew his appointment upon his turning 75 years old.

The applicant argued that age was an irrelevant factor since the Courts of Justice Act does not prescribe a mandatory retirement age for deputy judges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the senior regional judge was entitled to consider age and the need to provide experience to younger judges as relevant factors in her administrative discretion.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review of an Ontario Human Rights Commission decision, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondents sought costs, while the applicant argued that a costs award would impose a significant burden.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $3,500 for the Commission and $3,500 for the Hospital and doctor, payable by the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision assigning the teaching of the Life and Learning Skills program for students aged 14 and older in secondary schools to members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

The applicant argued the work should belong to elementary teachers because the academic content was at the primary level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB correctly interpreted the Education Act by considering the physical location, educational purpose, and body of pupils, and reasonably applied labour relations principles to conclude the work belonged to secondary school teachers.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with her discrimination complaint against her former employer.

The Commission had exercised its discretion under section 34 of the Human Rights Code to dismiss the complaint because it was filed more than six months after the events giving rise to it, and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the Commission's exercise of discretion was not patently unreasonable.

The Minister of Finance appealed a decision vacating a land transfer tax assessment against Upper Valley Dodge Chrysler Limited.

The sole shareholder of the corporation had transferred land to the corporation and claimed an exemption under s. 3(1) of Regulation 697, which applies to transfers from an 'individual' to a 'family business corporation'.

The Minister argued the corporation could not be an 'individual' or 'operator' under the strict wording of the regulation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying a purposive approach to statutory interpretation to find that the transfer fell within the intended scope of the family business exemption.

The applicant hospital appealed an arbitrator's preliminary order granting the respondent union an extension of time to proceed to arbitration for a discharge grievance.

The union had missed the 21-day deadline by four days.

The Divisional Court reviewed whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time limit.

The Court held that because the collective agreement specifically included the referral to arbitration as Step 3 of the grievance procedure, the arbitrator correctly concluded she had jurisdiction to extend the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The successful applicant sought costs of $98,000 on a substantial indemnity basis following a judicial review of a decision revoking his licence.

The court noted the substantial consequence of the matter and the time required, but found the claimed amount exceeded what was reasonably recoverable and what the respondent might have anticipated.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $60,000.

The appellant physician was convicted of sexually abusing a patient by the Discipline Committee.

At the hearing, the appellant sought production of the treating psychologist's notes, which were illegible.

The Panel dismissed the motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction and that the first stage of the O'Connor test was not met, but provided no further reasons.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Panel breached the duty of fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which was both incorrect on jurisdiction and inexplicable on the O'Connor test.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered.

The applicant, Earthroots Coalition, sought judicial review of the Minister of Natural Resources' decision to permit the improvement and use of a logging road crossing the Bob Lake Conservation Reserve.

The applicant argued the road use violated the Conservation Reserve Regulation, which prohibits commercial forest harvest and industrial uses in the reserve.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court dismissed the application.

The court held that the regulation must be interpreted purposively within the broader legislative framework of the Public Lands Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, making the Minister's decision to balance conservation with forest management objectives reasonable.

Following a successful appeal granting summary judgment on liability and directing an assessment of damages, the appellant sought costs on a full indemnity basis pursuant to a lease provision.

The respondents argued that costs should be reserved to the assessment judge, as the true magnitude of the appellant's victory would only be known once damages were assessed.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondents and ordered that the costs of the appeal and the motion for leave be in the discretion of the judge hearing the assessment of damages.

The appellant appealed a summary trial judgment ordering the return of a $20,000 condominium deposit to the respondent.

The trial judge had found the respondent mentally incompetent to enter the agreement of purchase and sale based solely on a medical report from her psychiatrist.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding that the medical report was improperly admitted into evidence because it was not supported by an affidavit nor filed in compliance with section 52 of the Evidence Act, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision declining to grant summary judgment against the respondent tenants for breach of a commercial lease.

The tenants had raised defences based on alleged prior representations and a non-competition clause.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that an 'entire agreement' clause precluded reliance on prior representations, and that the non-competition clause only applied if the tenant was not in default.

As the tenants were in arrears before the competing lease was signed, the defences and counterclaim failed.

Summary judgment was granted on liability, with damages to be assessed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his solicitor negligence claim against his former lawyer.

The appellant alleged that the lawyer's negligence in advising him and representing him at a bail hearing resulted in his 30-day detention.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no causal connection between the lawyer's actions and the detention.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her request to reconsider a previous decision that denied her benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Tribunal had found a lack of temporal connection between her condition and her work.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonability and found that the Tribunal's findings of fact and refusal to reconsider were supported by medical evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission revoking his horse racing licences for allegedly conspiring to fix a race.

The Commission's majority decision relied heavily on the uncorroborated evidence of an admitted liar who had made a deal to implicate the applicant, while ignoring exculpatory evidence and failing to explain why it disbelieved the applicant's witnesses.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's failure to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and penalty constituted a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding the discharge of an employee for sleeping on the job.

The employee was subject to a Last Chance Agreement that permitted immediate discharge for sleeping at work.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably disregarded medical evidence suggesting the employee suffered from sleep apnea and circadian rhythm disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator carefully considered the evidence and reasonably concluded the sleep apnea only became significant after termination.

The arbitrator's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his application for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by deciding the matter on the issue of delay without giving the applicant an opportunity to address it.

The applicant's own delay in applying for judicial review was satisfactorily explained by his impecuniosity.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further consideration.