Carolyn J. Horkins

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on a Ministerial reference, arguing they were denied procedural fairness because the Minister's question was inaccurately conveyed to them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on a Ministerial reference is an advisory opinion that does not determine legal rights and is therefore not reviewable on procedural fairness grounds.

Furthermore, the court found that the procedural defect did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the applicants had ample opportunity to address the core issues and the outcome would not have been different.

The applicants sought a declaration that a proposed municipal fee for a fill permit was an illegal tax, and a mandamus order compelling the respondent municipality to issue the permit.

The municipality had refused to issue the permit until a fill agreement and fill management plan were finalized, which included resolving several outstanding technical and environmental issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the applicants did not yet have a clear legal right to the permit and the municipality was not under an obligation to issue it while significant issues remained unresolved.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to pay interim spousal support.

The original motion was brought solely to seek the sale of the matrimonial home, and neither party had requested interim spousal support in their motion materials.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed an error of law by ordering interim spousal support without providing the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions on the issue.

The provision ordering spousal support was struck.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring it to pay unpaid legal fees to the respondent bank.

The bank had made an arithmetic error in a mortgage discharge statement, omitting the legal fees from the final total, though they were listed in the body of the statement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the discharge of the mortgage did not extinguish the underlying contractual debt and that the appellant had not detrimentally relied on the error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of workplace discrimination on the basis of race.

The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint because the 2009 and 2011 allegations were out of time, the 2014 termination was appropriately dealt with through a union grievance and arbitration, and there was insufficient evidence for the 2015 allegations.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, there was no denial of procedural fairness, and the Charter did not apply to private workplace interactions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application to evict a tenant for the landlord's own use under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlords intended for their son, a university student in London, to occupy the Toronto unit on weekends and during the summer for five years.

The Board found this occasional occupation did not constitute 'residential occupation'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation and application of the statutory condition was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his claim that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant alleged bias and bad faith by a union representative who refused to seek judicial review of a dismissed grievance.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision reasonable, noting no evidence of bias or bad faith.

The court also dismissed allegations of procedural fairness and bias against the Board Vice-Chair, finding the consultation process was permitted under the Labour Relations Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the union.

Following a lengthy family law trial where both parties experienced divided success, the applicant sought costs on the basis of the respondent's alleged bad faith and failure to disclose.

The respondent sought reimbursement of a $140,000 interim disbursement payment.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and, given the divided success and the offers to settle, ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The respondent's request for reimbursement was also denied.

The applicant, a landlord, sought judicial review of a City of North Bay by-law imposing licensing requirements on rental properties with multiple tenants.

She argued the by-law discriminated against students contrary to the Human Rights Code and the Charter, and conflicted with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that student status is not a protected ground, there was no evidence of adverse effects discrimination, and the by-law did not conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a previous Divisional Court decision dismissing her application for judicial review of a WSIAT decision.

She alleged fresh evidence of fraud based on a prior Tribunal decision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was an abuse of process and vexatious, as the issue had already been decided in previous proceedings.

Full indemnity costs of $5,500 were awarded against the applicant.

The appellant, a former Director of Education, appealed a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for plagiarism and revoking his certificate.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused his request for a medical adjournment and proceeded in his absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee failed to consider the totality of the medical evidence regarding the appellant's major depressive disorder and unfairly relied on undisclosed internet search results about his employment.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his medical licence for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after the termination of the doctor-patient relationship.

The Divisional Court found the penalty unreasonable because it vastly exceeded the typical range of penalties imposed in similar cases without adequate justification.

Furthermore, the Committee's finding that the appellant posed an ongoing risk to the public was not supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The appeal was granted and the matter of penalty was remitted to the Committee for reconsideration.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding that it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee.

The employer argued the Deputy Judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact by failing to consider hearsay evidence suggesting the employee had voluntarily resigned by transferring his duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the employee's email and actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation, and the unconsidered hearsay evidence would not have changed the result.

The self-represented appellant appealed a jury verdict dismissing her negligence claim against a public transit commission for injuries allegedly sustained when a bus door closed on her.

She raised numerous grounds of appeal, including alleged errors by the trial judge in quashing witness summonses, admitting pre-accident medical records, instructing the jury, and awarding costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and concluding that the jury's verdict of no negligence was supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering him to pay $386,443.15 for defaulting on a share purchase agreement.

The respondent had originally sought an oppression remedy against the corporation but amended the application to seek personal judgment against the appellant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the amendment did not constitute a new cause of action and was therefore not statute-barred.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the judgment resulted in double recovery, noting the appellant continued to operate the company and the respondent undertook to return the share certificate upon satisfaction of the judgment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination and reprisal against a volunteer model aviation club.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant was removed from his position due to interpersonal conflict, not age, and that he pursued the complaint in bad faith, disentitling him to protection from reprisal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing his complaints against his union and its president for alleged breaches of the duty of fair representation and intimidation.

The applicant alleged the union president told the college president to fire him after the applicant raised concerns about the union's workplace culture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the applicant suffered no actual prejudice in his employment relationship.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding the respondent's entitlement to attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The LAT had found that the respondent's personal support worker did not need to prove economic loss, as she was providing services in the course of her ordinary employment, even though she was hired after the accident.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the LAT's interpretation of the SABS is reasonableness.

The Court found the LAT's interpretation of s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) to be reasonable and consistent with the legislative intent to prevent abuse by unqualified family members, rather than to bar legitimate services.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a trial judgment that terminated child support for the parties' two children, the court determined the ongoing quantum of spousal support.

The parties' separation agreement provided for a combined unallocated support payment of $10,000 net per month.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $11,000 gross per month in spousal support effective January 1, 2018, and dismissed the respondent's request for a retroactive order and reimbursement of alleged overpayments.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy and requiring them to pay $24,351.50 for mould damage.

The Board found the appellants negligently caused the mould by maintaining a hot and humid environment despite warnings from the landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the damage was reasonably foreseeable and that the Board's reasons were adequate.