Charles T. Hackland

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Kingston Area Taxi Commission revoking his taxi licenses.

The Divisional Court found that the applicant was denied procedural fairness because he received only 6 days' notice instead of the required 14 days, and the Commission continued the hearing on a later date without notifying him or his representative.

The court set aside the Commission's decision and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university senate appeals committee decision denying him a specialized accounting degree.

The dispute centered on whether a specific strategic management course could be included in calculating his grade point average for the specialization.

The Divisional Court held that the committee's decision on an academic matter was subject to a reasonableness standard of review and found the decision to exclude the course was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal.

Costs were fixed in the amount of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST, payable forthwith by the respondents to the appellant.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision dismissing its appeal against the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment (OPA 77) without a hearing.

The applicant argued the OMB erred by reviewing evidence on the motion to dismiss, akin to a summary judgment motion, rather than assuming the facts in the notice of appeal were true.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the OMB's procedure was reasonable and necessary to screen out appeals with no chance of success.

The court also found no error in the OMB's conclusion that the applicant's environmental and storm water management concerns could not form a land use planning basis to refuse OPA 77 at this stage.

The appellant, a junior lawyer, was summarily dismissed by her employer after writing a highly critical letter regarding office administration and compensation, which included an accusation of dishonesty and negligence.

The trial judge found the letter constituted insolence justifying summary dismissal.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to apply the contextual approach mandated by McKinley v. BC Tel.

Applying the contextual approach, the Court found the single incident of harsh communication did not irreparably destroy the employment relationship.

The appeal was allowed and damages in lieu of reasonable notice were awarded.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the administration and calculation of her entitlements under the Ontario Works Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appeals under the Act are restricted to questions of law.

Because the appellant raised only administrative and factual complaints, the court found no error of law.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granting the respondent bank recovery of a credit card debt.

The central issue was whether the action was barred by the six-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the limitation period began to run when the bank terminated the credit card agreement and the entire debt became immediately payable, rather than on the date of the initial missed minimum payment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant employer successfully sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, resulting in the reinstatement of the grievor's employment termination.

The parties agreed the applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs, leaving only the quantum to be determined.

The court assessed the claimed fees and disbursements, reducing the fees to $10,000 and disbursements to $2,535, noting the complexity of the proceeding and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party under Rule 57.01(1).

The appellants appealed a judgment that awarded the respondents a declaration of trespass, general damages, punitive damages, and costs following a property line dispute over a fence.

The application judge had decided the matter under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure despite conflicting affidavit evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that Rule 14.05(3) is not available for the resolution of general and punitive damage claims where material facts are in dispute.

The court set aside the damages and costs awards and directed a trial of an issue regarding the respondents' entitlement to damages.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for certification of a class proceeding against a tour operator regarding a norovirus outbreak at resorts in the Dominican Republic.

The Divisional Court found that while the motions judge did not err in narrowing the class definition, he erred in principle in his analysis of the preferable procedure criterion by failing to assess it in the context of the narrowed class.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal and costs orders were set aside, and the matter was referred back to the motions judge for consideration of a revised litigation plan.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding that a re-qualification provision for short-term disability benefits was discriminatory.

The provision required employees to work three continuous 'regular work weeks' to re-qualify for benefits, which disadvantaged employees with partial disabilities who could only return to work part-time.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the provision discriminated against workers with partial disabilities who might never re-qualify for benefits despite working continuously at a reduced level.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision to reinstate a bus driver who was terminated after a rear-end collision.

The arbitrator found the driver was careless but held the collective agreement required 'flagrant' carelessness to justify automatic dismissal.

The Divisional Court held the arbitrator's interpretation was unreasonable and violated the clear wording of the collective agreement and s. 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The arbitrator's decision was set aside and the termination was reinstated.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a cottage property.

The trial judge had found that a 1964 letter agreement was not an enforceable contract due to uncertainty in the property description, as part of the land described was on an adjoining Crown reserve.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the purchasers were entitled to specific performance for the portion of the land the vendor was able to convey.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in applying the Limitations Act, as the limitation period did not begin until a demand to convey was made.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent by unilaterally reducing his commission from 18% to 9%.

The trial judge awarded a 15-month notice period, 3 months of Wallace damages for a toxic work environment, and 8 years of unpaid vacation and public holiday pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on constructive dismissal, the Bardal factors for notice, the Wallace damages, and the respondent's entitlement to statutory holiday and vacation pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The appellant, a former member of the Investment Dealers Association (IDA), challenged the IDA's jurisdiction to discipline him after he ceased to be a member.

The IDA's by-laws permitted discipline of former members for up to five years, and the Ontario Securities Commission upheld this jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Securities Act only authorizes the regulation of current members.

The court concluded that the IDA's by-law contravened the Act and that the IDA lacked jurisdiction to discipline former members.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant sued his former solicitor for negligence regarding the sale of a taxi business, claiming the solicitor failed to advise him of a discrepancy in interest payments under the sale agreement.

The trial judge found the solicitor negligent but dismissed the action because the appellant failed to prove damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, noting that without the solicitor's negligence, the sale would not have occurred, and the appellant provided no evidence that the business was worth more than the amount received.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for payments under a 2006 contract renewal notice.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the respondent was estopped from claiming reimbursement due to its failure to respond to the notice within thirty days.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to meet the test for raising a new argument on appeal, as the evidentiary record regarding detrimental reliance and fairness was not fully developed at trial.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that the execution of a forbearance agreement did not release him from his guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the terms of the guarantee explicitly allowed the bank to grant time and other indulgences to the borrower without discharging the guarantor's liability.

The appellants purchased goods from the respondent under a contract stating the goods must be free of liens.

After accepting the goods and making payment, the appellants discovered an outstanding lien and sought to repudiate the contract.

The trial judge found the breach should be treated as a breach of warranty under s. 12(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, entitling the appellants to damages rather than repudiation.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, noting the appellants' actions were consistent with treating the term as a warranty.

The appeal was dismissed, but execution of the judgment was stayed up to $40,000 pending resolution of a Third Party Notice from the Ministry of Revenue.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his application to amend his statement of claim to plead illegal consideration.

The Master and the appeal judge had refused the amendment, finding it an abuse of process because a judge on a prior interlocutory injunction motion ruled the allegation did not raise a triable issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a refusal to grant an interlocutory injunction is a preliminary decision and does not finally determine the cause of action.

The appellant was granted leave to amend his statement of claim.