Caputo

The respondents brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to vary an order that refused to strike certain material from the applicant's application record.

The material in question referenced a 'without prejudice' settlement offer made during a tax dispute.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the motions judge erred in his application of the test for settlement privilege.

The court held that the communications met the three-part test for settlement privilege and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a compelling or overriding interest of justice to justify an exception to the privilege.

The appellant successfully defended a claim for trespass and damage to property at trial, but the trial judge dismissed the claim without costs and without giving the appellant an opportunity to make costs submissions.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while a trial judge has discretion to refuse costs, procedural fairness requires hearing submissions first.

The court considered the matter afresh and awarded the appellant costs of the trial on a partial indemnity scale, as well as $7,000 for the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel which had quashed her appeal from a Hearing Panel's dismissal of her motion challenging jurisdiction.

The Law Society argued the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the Appeal Panel's decision was not a final order under section 49.38 of the Law Society Act.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the right of appeal is statutory and limited to final dispositions of disciplinary proceedings.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to refuse to investigate his human rights complaint.

The Commission had determined that the complaint was more appropriately dealt with under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Labour Relations Act, as the applicant had previously grieved his dismissal and reached a settlement through his union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable because the applicant had access to an arbitration procedure capable of adjudicating human rights issues and had already reached a settlement.

The applicant sought judicial review of a college appeal committee's decision upholding his involuntary withdrawal from a nursing program.

He alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because one panel member, the college registrar, had previously reviewed his file and discussed his case with him.

A majority of the Divisional Court found that the prior undisclosed involvement did create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

However, the Court unanimously dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant had impliedly waived any objection by failing to raise the issue at the hearing despite being represented by counsel.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The underlying matter involved an application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer the applicant's discrimination complaint to a tribunal.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the motion judge's decision and dismissed the motion.

The appellant, a psychiatric nurse, appealed a finding of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses.

The misconduct involved an improper romantic relationship with a former patient.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of misconduct, concluding the Panel's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence.

The College's cross-appeal regarding the standard of proof for sexual misconduct was dismissed.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the 18-month suspension and 24-month restriction on psychiatric nursing excessive for a first-time young offender.

The suspension was reduced to six months and the restriction was set aside.

The applicant sought costs for two applications for judicial review and a hearing before a college appeal committee.

The Divisional Court held it had no jurisdiction to award costs for the college committee hearing.

The court found the costs claimed for the judicial review applications to be excessive and denied certain disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $1,000 for the first abandoned application and $4,000 for the second application, for a total of $5,000 all inclusive.

The respondent, Hamilton Police Service, sought costs following an appeal, submitting a draft bill of costs for $26,224.33.

After reviewing the written submissions of counsel, the Divisional Court fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $10,000 plus disbursements of $263.37 and GST.

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 applicant, a nursing student with cerebral palsy, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent college's Student Appeals Committee upholding her failing grade in a clinical course.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Committee failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, refused to hear her expert witness on discrimination and accommodation, and refused to allow a court reporter to record the proceedings.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Committee's failure to provide reasons for its decision and its refusal to hear the expert witness constituted a denial of procedural fairness.

The decision was set aside and remitted to a new panel.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the Tenant Protection Act applied to a trailer park site rented by the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to exhaust their internal remedies, including a statutory right of appeal on a question of law and a right to request a review by the Tribunal.

The Court also found no error of law on the face of the record, as the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether the Act applied.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed an order of the Fitness to Practise Committee regarding the respondent nurse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee failed to fully consider the uncontroverted evidence of an addiction medicine specialist who assessed the respondent.

The Court set aside the Committee's order, declared the respondent 'incapacitated' under the Health Professions Procedural Code, and remitted the matter to the Committee to determine the appropriate order.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which found they were not entitled to compensation for a delayed closing under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants had signed an amendment to their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, substituting a new lot and setting a new closing date, which the builder met.

The Divisional Court found no error of fact or law in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding $1,000 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant airline sought judicial review of an interlocutory order from the Small Claims Court, which had dismissed its motion to dismiss the respondent's lost baggage claim based on the two-year limitation period in the Warsaw Convention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that the relief under the Judicial Review Procedure Act is discretionary and the applicant failed to show why the matter should not proceed to trial.

The defendants appealed a costs award in a motor vehicle action where the jury awarded the plaintiff $20,000.

The trial judge found that the defendants' offer to settle was unenforceable and that section 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act required the statutory deductible to be ignored when considering the cost consequences of an offer to settle under Rule 49.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal because the offer was indeed unenforceable, but clarified that section 267.5(9) does not apply to Rule 49 offers to settle, as doing so would undermine the purpose of the offer to settle rule.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a trial judgment that declared its mortgage void and granted priority to construction lien claimants.

The trial judge found the mortgage contravened the financial assistance provisions of the OBCA, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, and the Assignments and Preferences Act, as the mortgagor was insolvent and the mortgagee failed to conduct due diligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of legal principles.

A cross-appeal by a lien claimant regarding trial costs was allowed, and its costs were increased.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his discrimination complaint against a university to a board of inquiry.

He also sought $55 million in damages against the university.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable as it had investigated the complaint and based its decision on evidence of the applicant's academic and financial issues.

The court also held it lacks jurisdiction to award damages on an application for judicial review.

The applicant, a college professor, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap.

He also filed 14 grievances covering the same allegations under his collective agreement.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission exercised its discretion under s. 34(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code not to deal with the complaint, finding it could be more appropriately dealt with through the grievance and arbitration procedure.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the Commission's decision was patently unreasonable because it failed to investigate the efficacy of the grievance procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission is not required to conduct a full-scale investigation into the efficacy of the grievance procedure and its decision was not patently unreasonable given the overlap between the grievances and the complaint.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding that its continued use of freelance columnists and reporters violated the collective agreement to the financial detriment of a laid-off editorial employee who had bumped into a lower-paying reporter position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review.

While acknowledging the employer's argument that the arbitrator's broad interpretation could lead to absurd results in other contexts, the court held that the interpretation was based on the plain meaning of the words and was not clearly irrational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.