Catherine D. Aitken

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they breached the Securities Act by trading and distributing securities to offshore investors without registration or a prospectus.

The appellants argued the Commission lacked constitutional jurisdiction because the distributions occurred outside Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding a sufficient connection between the appellants' activities and Ontario to justify regulatory action, as the appellants were Ontario residents, used an Ontario transfer agent, and deposited funds in Ontario bank accounts.

The court also upheld the Commission's costs award as reasonable.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing his grievances against the Police Services Board.

The arbitrator had ruled that the applicant lacked standing to proceed to arbitration because his police association refused to take carriage of the grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that under the Police Services Act and the collective agreement, an individual officer does not have the right to arbitrate a grievance against the employer without the association's support.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that required it to pay educational assistants for accompanying special needs students on an overnight camping trip.

The school board argued that the employees volunteered and were not 'required' to attend under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of 'required' as 'needed' was reasonable, justified, and fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes.

The insured's vehicle was damaged when her daughter, experiencing an acute psychotic episode, drove it across three lanes of traffic and into a tree.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the daughter's actions were intentional.

The trial judge found the loss was 'accidental' as the daughter lacked conscious control of the vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding and further noting that the innocent insured owner was entitled to coverage regardless, as the event was unexpected from her perspective.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision that revoked his licence for practising while suspended.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application because the applicant had not exhausted his statutory right to appeal to the Appeal Panel.

The Court also noted that the application lacked merit, as the Hearing Panel's decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his employment discrimination complaint to a tribunal.

The complaint alleged discrimination based on race and colour.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found that the Commission reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant a referral.

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

The respondent property owner initially sought retroactive reclassification of his property, but amended his application to seek a fairness hearing regarding his municipal taxes.

The application judge reduced the respondent's taxes owing to $3,000, relying on inherent and equitable jurisdiction.

The municipality appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Assessment Act and Municipal Act provide a comprehensive statutory mechanism for tax assessment and collection, and the application judge lacked jurisdiction to circumvent this framework to alter property classifications or reduce taxes.

The appellant insurer appealed an order granting partial summary judgment which declared that the respondent's action for disability benefits was commenced within the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in holding that a clear and unequivocal denial was necessary to trigger the limitation period.

Because discoverability issues were raised, there was a genuine issue for trial, and the matter should not have been determined on a motion for summary judgment.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a trial judge's order granting a mother and aunt access to two children who had been made Crown wards.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by ignoring the statutory presumption against access to Crown wards and improperly placing the burden of proof on the Society.

The court also found the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the beneficial nature of the access and its impact on the children's future opportunities for a permanent and stable adoptive placement.

The appeal was allowed, the access order for the mother and aunt was terminated, and the order was left silent on sibling access to allow the Society to facilitate it.

The applicants, parishioners of St. Brigid's Catholic Church, sought judicial review of the Archbishop's decision to suppress the parish and dispose of the church property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the Roman Catholic Church is not a statutory body and the decision was made under private canon law, not affecting any property or civil rights of the parishioners.

The court further noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not intervene as canon law did not require a public hearing and the church's closure was driven by insurmountable financial difficulties.

The applicants brought an application for judicial review to quash the respondent municipality's issuance of nine new taxicab owner licences to a competitor.

The municipality had used a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to select the recipient, rather than the criteria set out in its taxi by-law.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness.

The court found the issuance was a nullity because the municipal council never actually passed a resolution approving the issuance.

Furthermore, the RFP process was unlawful because it imposed criteria and conditions not authorized by the taxi by-law or the Municipal Act.

The application was granted and the issuance of the licences was quashed.

The applicant, a deaf person, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the failure of the Building Code to require rear window captioning in movie theatres constituted discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal, finding insufficient evidence of a denial of a service and noting that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to amend legislation.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission's gate-keeping decision was not patently unreasonable, as the Tribunal cannot read in provisions to the Building Code to make it comply with the Human Rights Code.

The applicant tenant sought judicial review to quash a preliminary decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which found it had jurisdiction to hear the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy for refusing entry to upgrade fire alarms.

The applicant argued the Tribunal lost jurisdiction due to issue estoppel from a 1996 consent judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that courts will not interfere with ongoing tribunal proceedings or preliminary rulings unless the tribunal never had jurisdiction or irretrievably lost it, which was not the case here.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the respondent in response to an application for an expedited hearing under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicant argued the affidavit was incomplete and misleading.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit addressed factual matters within the Registrar's knowledge and was not prejudicial, scandalous, or an abuse of process.

The court noted the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant or file a responding affidavit.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault against the respondents due to a 51-month delay from arrest to trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the inherent time requirements of the case, particularly regarding a recanting witness and inaccurate time estimates for the preliminary inquiry.

The Court concluded that the delay, while lengthy, did not violate the respondents' s. 11(b) Charter rights given the minimal prejudice suffered and society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The stay was set aside and a trial ordered.

The appellant sued the respondent school board and its former director for defamation based on statements made during a television broadcast regarding her allegations of a teacher's sexual misconduct.

At trial, the jury found the statements defamatory and malicious, but true, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's charge to the jury unfairly restricted the context of the words complained of, leading to a substantial wrong.

Despite the appellant's failure to object to the charge at trial, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial in the interests of justice.

The appellants were convicted of possession of heroin and marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after drugs were found during a warrantless search of a family-visit trailer at Collins Bay Penitentiary.

They appealed, arguing the search violated their s. 8 Charter rights, the proceedings were unreasonably delayed, and lost videotape evidence impaired their defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the family-visit trailer constituted a 'cell' under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, making the warrantless search lawful.

The court also rejected the delay and lost evidence arguments, and upheld the sentence imposed on the appellant husband.

The appellant occupier appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to a pizza delivery driver who slipped and fell on an unplowed path on the premises.

The trial judge found the occupier 50% liable due to inadequate lighting and signage directing visitors to the safe, plowed staircase.

On appeal, the occupier argued that inadequate lighting was not specifically pleaded and that the trial judge erred in her findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the pleadings regarding failure to maintain safe pathways were broad enough to include lighting, the issue was raised at trial without objection, and there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings on breach of duty and causation.

The appellant appealed the judgment of Justice John H. Brockenshire dated June 12, 2000.

On consent, the Court of Appeal ordered that the order go as asked.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted an order on consent in accordance with the amended draft order filed by the parties.