Carnwath J.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued it should be exempt from costs as a public interest litigant.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicant had a material interest in the proceeding, as success would have halted an underlying police disciplinary hearing and an abuse of process motion against the applicant.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $33,434.93.

Following the dissolution of the law firm representing the plaintiff in a proposed class proceeding, the plaintiff served a Notice of Change of Solicitors to appoint a new firm formed by some of the former partners.

The appellant, a firm formed by another former partner who had been the supervising lawyer, moved to set aside the Notice or replace the representative plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's choice of counsel was adequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no error of law and his decision was reasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that substituted a lengthy suspension without pay for the grievor's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the applicant's unexplained delay of over a year and a half in perfecting the application caused prejudice to the respondent and warranted dismissal.

Second, the arbitrator's decision to deny back wages was entirely reasonable and within his broad remedial jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The court found no denial of procedural fairness, as the issue of penalty was in play throughout the hearing.

The appellant corporation, KPM, appealed an order of the case management judge denying it leave to bring a motion to remove itself as a party to a long-standing family dispute.

KPM argued the order was made summarily without an opportunity to be heard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the case management judge was entirely familiar with the reasons for adding KPM as a party to facilitate property valuation, and was entitled to deal with the request expediently.

The reasons for KPM's inclusion as a party remained extant.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent's service manager to revoke her rent-geared-to-income housing subsidy.

The applicant had been granted the subsidy by a property manager without following proper procedures, a fact unknown to the applicant.

The Divisional Court found that the respondent failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness by not giving her an opportunity to comment under section 80 of the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, and by having the same person who participated in the original decision conduct the review, contrary to section 58(2) of Ontario Regulation 298/01.

The decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration by a different decision-maker.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and retained a paralegal to negotiate a settlement with the tortfeasors' insurer.

The plaintiff later sued the tortfeasors and the paralegal, alleging the paralegal was negligent and the settlement was invalid.

The paralegal cross-claimed against the tortfeasors, arguing their insurer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff not to negotiate with an unauthorized paralegal.

The Divisional Court allowed the tortfeasors' appeal and struck the cross-claim, holding that a liability insurer owes no duty of care to a plaintiff making a claim against its insured, as this would create an impossible conflict of interest.

The moving party brought a motion pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of Gans J. The Divisional Court considered the criteria for setting aside a Registrar's order, noting that the overriding consideration is what the justice of the case requires.

The court found that Gans J. was entitled to conclude there was insufficient evidence to relieve the appellant from the operation of the rules.

The motion was dismissed with costs payable from the estate and charged against the moving party's interest.

The appellant City of Waterloo appealed a trial decision finding that a competing bidder, Xterra, failed to comply with the material terms of a municipal tender.

The trial judge concluded that the requirement to submit a bid including only the base bid was a material term, and that Xterra's failure to follow this instruction constituted non-compliance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's decision involved a mixed question of fact and law, and rejected the appellant's argument that the standard of review was correctness.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating his tenancy and ordering him to pay rent arrears.

The tenant argued that he had a private agreement with the landlord's property manager to freeze his rent indefinitely, and that the landlord was estopped from resiling from this agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 2(1) of the Tenant Protection Act prohibits landlords and tenants from contracting out of the Act's provisions, even where the agreement benefits the tenant.

The court also held that the doctrine of estoppel cannot override a clear statutory prohibition.

The tenants appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal awarding them $2,000 after the landlord disposed of their possessions following an eviction.

The tenants sought $30,000 and argued the Tribunal erred by failing to give reasons for the quantum of damages and for not allowing them to proceed in court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the failure to give reasons is an error of law, and set aside the damages award, allowing the tenants to elect whether to proceed before the Tribunal or a court.

The landlord appealed a tribunal decision, arguing the Member erred in law by finding there was no evidence that the landlord or her parents had previously resided in the unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, concluding the tribunal Member found there was no evidence that the father had been a genuine occupant of the premises within the meaning of the statute.

The Grand River Conservation Authority appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the Tenant Protection Act applied to seasonal cottage lot leases.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation that the s. 3(a) exemption for seasonal accommodation only applies to commercial establishments like hotels or campgrounds, not to these cottage lots.

However, the Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to determine whether a prior mediated settlement between the parties, which purported to exclude the Act's application, was valid under s. 181(2) of the Act.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review.

The respondents argued the application was moot because they had sought approval of a second site plan.

The Divisional Court rejected the mootness argument and held it had jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay the application.

The court ordered the application for judicial review stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal of the second site plan to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, noting that if the second site plan is approved, the application will become moot.

The applicant sought judicial review of two awards by the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board regarding the divestment of young offender facilities.

The Board found the applicant breached the collective agreement by failing to require new operators to recognize employees' seniority, and awarded a blanket monetary remedy to all affected employees based on years of service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's collective remedy was appropriate and reasonable in the labour relations context, despite the applicant's argument that individual losses should have been assessed.

The appellant husband appealed an order varying his child support obligations.

A previous consent order had set support below the Child Support Guidelines table amount.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstances, as the husband was no longer obligated to support the two eldest children, and increased the support for the remaining three children to the Guidelines amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence, as there were no special provisions justifying a departure from the Guidelines.

The defendants appealed a decision refusing to strike out paragraphs of a statement of claim in a proposed national class proceeding regarding the prescription drug Prepulsid.

The defendants argued the representative plaintiff, an Ontario resident, could not assert causes of action under the legislation of other provinces, such as subrogated health insurance claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Class Proceedings Act permits a representative plaintiff to advance claims on behalf of class members that the plaintiff might not have personally.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to explicitly plead the out-of-province statutes relied upon as material facts.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which prohibited him from submitting accounts to OHIP for three years after he defrauded the public.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the College had jurisdiction to impose the billing prohibition under s. 51(2)(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Court held that the penalty was reasonable and entitled to deference, and rejected the argument that the prohibition was equivalent to an additional three-year suspension.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he had entered into an exploitive sexual relationship with a patient.

The appellant challenged the Committee's credibility findings based on a letter, body markings, and psychiatric evidence regarding the complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Committee's credibility assessments and holding that the penalty for such a profound breach of trust must stand.