Bryant

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs against the respondent tenants.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to order the costs payable on a joint and several basis, instead directing that each respondent tenant pay an equal share of the total costs award.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to award a water meter supply and installation contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued the City breached procedural fairness by using undisclosed evaluation criteria, specifically a technical ratio and a 5-year evaluation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Request for Proposals granted the City broad discretion and explicitly stated selection would be based on merit and price ratio.

The court also excluded the applicant's proffered expert evidence on procurement fairness, finding it unnecessary to assist the court.

The Attorney General applied for forfeiture of $5,545 seized during a drug investigation under the Civil Remedies Act.

The respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the supporting affidavit that referred to his criminal record and past drug-related activity, arguing it was inadmissible propensity evidence.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The respondent appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that similar fact evidence of bad character is admissible in civil forfeiture proceedings where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, as it is relevant to whether the seized money is proceeds of unlawful activity.

The appellant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and sexual abuse suffered at a training school as a youth.

The Board denied compensation, taking into account the appellant's subsequent criminal behaviour, including a conviction for rape.

The appellant appealed, arguing that subsequent conduct should not be considered under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's broad discretion to consider 'all relevant circumstances' includes the claimant's subsequent criminal conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Kingston Area Taxi Commission revoking his taxi licenses.

The Divisional Court found that the applicant was denied procedural fairness because he received only 6 days' notice instead of the required 14 days, and the Commission continued the hearing on a later date without notifying him or his representative.

The court set aside the Commission's decision and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university senate appeals committee decision denying him a specialized accounting degree.

The dispute centered on whether a specific strategic management course could be included in calculating his grade point average for the specialization.

The Divisional Court held that the committee's decision on an academic matter was subject to a reasonableness standard of review and found the decision to exclude the course was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify additional common issues in an existing class action and refusing certification of a proposed related class action.

The claims arose from the distribution of a pension plan surplus following corporate downsizing.

The appellants sought to certify issues related to the partial termination of the pension plan, ownership of the surplus, and estoppel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the court lacks jurisdiction to order a partial termination of a pension plan, and that the other proposed common issues were either inextricably linked to the partial termination claim, already covered by existing certified issues, or inappropriate for certification because they required individual assessments of reliance.

A reporter sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to records of communications among Ministry of the Attorney General officials regarding an ongoing, high-profile criminal prosecution of police officers.

The Ministry refused, relying on the exclusion in s. 65(5.2) for records relating to an ongoing prosecution.

An adjudicator ordered the records produced for an inquiry, interpreting the exclusion narrowly to require a 'substantial connection' and limiting it to documents in the Crown brief.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the order, holding that the adjudicator erred in law by reading in a substantial connection requirement and that the exclusion applied broadly to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal to strike additional grounds and particulars from a Supplemental Notice of Proposal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, emphasizing the strong presumption that administrative tribunal procedures should be completed before seeking judicial review, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld two arbitrators' refusals to order independent medical examinations of the respondent claimant.

The arbitrators had denied the insurer's requests primarily due to the insurer's delay in seeking the examinations until the eve of or during the arbitration hearings.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably concluded the arbitrators had properly exercised their discretion to refuse the examinations in the interests of fairness and preventing delay.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating their tenancies and ordering their eviction under s. 65(1) of the Tenant Protection Act.

Police had executed search warrants and found illegal firearms and drugs in the appellants' units, leading to the arrest of family members and guests.

The appellants argued they were unaware of the illegal items and that s. 65(1) should be interpreted as a strict liability offence allowing a due diligence defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 65(1) does not incorporate a fault element or due diligence defence, and that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion under s. 83 to refuse relief from eviction.

The applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it violated the collective agreement by requiring students in an introductory psychology class to mark the work of other students without pay.

The arbitrator concluded that the students performing the marking function were members of the bargaining unit, relying on past grievance settlements that established an agreed interpretation prohibiting unpaid student labour for teaching and evaluation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and consistent with past interpretations.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision denying its request to reconsider a union certification order.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Board did not request further evidence before denying the reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board fully considered the request and the applicant failed to provide reasons for not responding to the initial certification application or evidentiary support for its claims.

The Board's decision was reasonable and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The corporate respondents sought costs of $32,950.29 on a partial indemnity basis following their success on an application for judicial review.

The applicants, represented by community legal clinics, argued no costs should be awarded as the application raised an issue of public interest regarding the related employer provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, finding the applicants were individuals of limited means who brought the application in good faith to enforce protective legislation, and the case raised an issue of importance for other vulnerable employees.

Following a successful appeal by the defendant, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle the appeal.

The court held that Rule 49 does not apply to offers to settle appeals and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the costs at $12,000 for fees plus disbursements and GST, finding the appellant's claimed hours slightly excessive for a case dismissed at the pleadings stage.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for summary judgment in a defamation action brought by the respondent.

The respondent's action was based on testimony the appellant gave at a Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the RECO Disciplinary Committee is a statutory tribunal and the appellant's testimony was protected by absolute privilege under the witness immunity rule.

As there was no genuine issue for trial, summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Board of Arbitration decision finding it had discriminated against a unionized security officer.

The employer had stopped offering the employee temporary management shifts after she attended a union convention.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement's anti-discrimination clause was logical and rational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Toronto against the university regarding her academic transcript.

The defendants successfully moved to transfer the action to Windsor, but the motion judge imposed a condition that the defendants pay the plaintiff's travel expenses 'in any event of the cause' due to her impecuniosity.

The defendants appealed the condition and the costs order, while the plaintiff cross-appealed the transfer.

The Divisional Court upheld the transfer, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court modified the condition to prevent fettering the discretion of the trial judge regarding costs, and remitted the issue of the motion's costs back to the motion judge as no submissions had been heard.