Carolyn J. Horkins

The applicant lawyer commenced a Small Claims Court action against a former client for unpaid fees.

After failing to comply with a production order requiring documents to be organized chronologically, the Deputy Judge ordered the applicant to pay $2,000 in costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interlocutory costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that it was essentially an appeal by a different name and that the Deputy Judge had jurisdiction to impose costs for litigation misconduct without breaching natural justice.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order dismissing their $3 million professional negligence action against two law firms for delay at a status hearing.

The Master found three years of unexplained delay and concluded the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, confirming that the 'Faris test' for dismissal for delay is a strict two-step conjunctive test and rejecting the plaintiffs' argument for a third 'contextual' or 'just result' step.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner adjudicator's decision ordering the City of Toronto to disclose portions of a software maintenance log under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant argued the log contained confidential technical information exempt from disclosure under s. 10(1).

The Divisional Court found the adjudicator's decision unreasonable, noting that the adjudicator applied the three-part exemption test inconsistently and failed to provide adequate justification for concluding the information was not supplied by the applicant.

The application was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellants appealed a Master's order dismissing their action for delay at a status hearing and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The individual appellant had been petitioned into bankruptcy, and the Trustee had sought directions from the Commercial Court regarding the action.

The Master refused to adjourn the status hearing and dismissed the action due to a long pattern of delay and non-compliance with previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with reasonable diligence.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the Master correctly applied the test for dismissal for delay and made no palpable and overriding error.

The applicants sought to set aside a single judge's decision quashing their application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The applicants argued that the judge should have applied the 'plain and obvious' test and referred the matter to a full panel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the 'plain and obvious' test applies to defects on the face of a proceeding, whereas the Borowski test is the correct framework for determining mootness.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's discretionary decision to decline hearing the moot application.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Master's order that refused to restore his motor vehicle accident action to the trial list.

The plaintiff missed the 30-day appeal deadline by a few days due to counsel's miscalculation of the time period.

Despite deficiencies in the plaintiff's supporting affidavits, the court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was short and inadvertent.

The appellant sold a residential property to the respondent.

Prior to closing, the City of Toronto issued an order requiring the appellant to repair a defective retaining wall.

The appellant actively concealed this order from the respondent.

The trial judge awarded the respondent damages for the cost of repairs.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court rejected as it did not meet the Palmer test.

The court applied the Housen standard of review, found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review to quash an arbitral award that enforced a four-party settlement agreement regarding regional flying ratios.

The applicant argued the settlement agreement had ceased to operate due to a changed corporate structure and a subsequent statutorily imposed collective agreement between only two of the parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the settlement agreement remained in force was reasonable, and that two parties could not unilaterally amend a four-party agreement through a bilateral statutory arbitration process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying benefits for a shoulder injury.

The applicant had previously received benefits for an elbow injury caused by repetitive stress at work.

The Tribunal concluded that the shoulder injury arose after the elbow injury and was not caused by it, nor by a workplace accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Tribunal's assessment of the medical evidence and application of the statutory presumption of causation.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board dismissing its Requests for Hearing regarding the removal of vascular ultrasound services from its licences.

The Board had dismissed the requests due to an inordinate 15-year delay causing prejudice, and found the requests moot because the appellant failed to comply with Minutes of Settlement that provided a mechanism to restore the services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and its application of the test for administrative delay correct.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board affirming the denial of her registration as a Registered Practical Nurse.

The appellant had failed the non-exemptible licensing examination three times, despite receiving accommodations for reading difficulties on her second and third attempts.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no evidence of testing improprieties or extraordinary circumstances to justify annulling the examinations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who received a structured settlement from a 1980 motor vehicle accident, appealed a decision reducing his Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Director determined that only the $60,000 principal used to purchase his lifetime annuity was exempt as damages for pain and suffering under O. Reg. 222/98, while the ongoing payments exceeding that amount constituted non-exempt interest income.

The Social Benefits Tribunal upheld this decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the exemption is limited to the original lump sum and does not extend to the interest generated by the annuity.

The appellant tenants filed an application alleging a bad faith eviction by the respondent landlord.

The one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act ended on a holiday weekend, and the tenants filed on the next business day.

The Landlord and Tenant Board dismissed the application as untimely, finding it had no discretion to extend the limitation period.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the Board's decision was unreasonable, as statutory computation of time rules extend deadlines falling on holidays to the next business day.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The appellant brought a medical malpractice claim in Small Claims Court against his former dentist.

After failing to produce a required expert report despite multiple orders, his claim was dismissed.

He subsequently sought an extension of time to appeal, which was denied by a motions judge.

A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed his motion to set aside the motions judge's order, finding no error in the conclusion that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension given the absence of an expert report.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering her to return prepaid rent to the respondents.

The respondents conceded that the trial judge failed to provide procedural fairness by not allowing parties to testify or cross-examine witnesses.

The Divisional Court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial.

However, the court declined the appellant's request to order the return of funds garnished by the respondents, noting the funds were properly released when the appellant temporarily lost her appeal rights due to her failure to perfect the appeal on time.

The appellants, an engineer and his company, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario finding them guilty of professional misconduct and negligence in the design of a manure storage tank.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee breached procedural fairness by adjudicating an allegation regarding a 'cut-out' in the tank wall without providing proper notice to the appellants.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Discipline Committee erred by relying on expert evidence that it had previously ruled inadmissible regarding the standard of practice.

The findings of professional misconduct were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a re-hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons' decision to take no action on her complaint against a physician.

The applicant alleged the tribunal failed to address all her allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal was not required to address every allegation and that its decision was reasonable based on the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding compensation to her former son-in-law for injuries she caused him.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Board did not notify her of the hearing, despite her having returned a form explicitly checking a box to indicate she did not want notice.

She claimed the Board should have warned her of the potential impact of the hearing on a related civil action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant clearly waived her right to notice and the Board had no duty to provide legal advice regarding collateral civil proceedings.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring it to post $140,000 in security for costs before trial.

The plaintiff argued there were conflicting decisions regarding the test for initiating a motion after a matter is set down for trial under Rule 48.01(1).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, noting the plaintiff had conceded it could post the security without prejudice.

The appellant issued two claims in Small Claims Court against her former criminal defence lawyer for professional negligence.

A deputy judge consolidated the claims to prevent claim splitting, limiting the total claim to $25,000.

The appellant's motion to set aside the consolidation was dismissed by another deputy judge.

The appellant appealed both orders to the Divisional Court.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders of the Small Claims Court.