Charles T. Hackland

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding a harvest procedure on a game farm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the harvest procedure was simply a hunt by another name.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $9,000.

The appellants were unsuccessful in their appeal of a decision refusing to certify their class action.

The respondents sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court adopted the approach of the motion judge, who had awarded approximately 15% of the amounts claimed by the respondents, reflecting the principle that costs against unsuccessful plaintiffs in certification motions are typically modest to promote access to justice.

Costs were fixed at $6,600 for the TTC, $1,600 for Pinchin Environmental, and $400 for the Crown.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify their action as a class proceeding.

The proposed class action concerned alleged asbestos exposure at a subway station during demolition activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decisions to strike the amended statement of claim, conclude that a class action was not the preferable procedure due to overwhelming individual issues, and find the proposed representative plaintiffs unsuitable due to egregious delay and concerns regarding counsel's competency.

The appellants appealed a decision of the class proceedings judge who struck out their Amended Amended Statement of Claim.

The judge had put the appellants to an election to either abandon the proposed amendment or proceed with it after submissions on costs thrown away, pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the judge made no error in her analysis and application of section 12 to ensure the fair and expeditious determination of the proceeding.

The tenant appealed an eviction order, arguing the Tribunal erred by failing to consider his drug addiction as a disability requiring accommodation under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court found that while the addiction was a disability, the tenant's operation of a crack house substantially interfered with other tenants' rights.

The court held that accommodating such behaviour would cause undue hardship to the landlord and other tenants, particularly since the tenant denied dealing drugs, making accommodation impossible.

The appeal was dismissed and the eviction order upheld.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's refusal to set aside a default judgment.

The motions judge found that the appellants failed to move as soon as possible and gave no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion.

The court also declined to interfere with the judgment based on an accounting argument over a $5,000 sum and noted it had no jurisdiction over post-judgment arguments regarding amounts owing.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding the discharge of an employee.

The Board had found that the employee's sale of used parts and retention of the proceeds was based on a misunderstanding of workplace practice, rather than willful misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's conclusions were supported by the evidence before it.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award upholding the dismissal of a bus driver who was involved in a fatal rear-end collision.

The driver had been acquitted of criminal negligence and dangerous driving charges.

The union argued that under the doctrine of abuse of process, the arbitration board erred by allowing the employer to relitigate facts decided in the criminal trial and by finding the driver grossly negligent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the abuse of process doctrine did not apply because the employer was not a party to the criminal proceedings.

The court further found that the arbitration board's conclusions regarding gross negligence, its decision to take a view of the accident scene, and its interpretation of the collective agreement were not patently unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring her to disclose a defence medical report and surveillance video obtained in a prior tort action to the respondent in her current accident benefits claim.

The motion judge had held that Rule 30.1.01 constrained the use of such evidence but not its disclosure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule prohibits collateral disclosure as well as collateral use to protect the privacy interests of litigants.

The court directed that any request for relief from the deemed undertaking must be brought before a motions judge under subrule 30.1.01(8).

Sears Holdings Corporation appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding its insider bid for Sears Canada Inc. The OSC had found that Holdings failed to comply with disclosure obligations, entered into agreements that contravened the Securities Act, and engaged in abusive and coercive conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for OSC decisions interpreting its constituting statute is reasonableness simpliciter, and that the OSC's findings and remedies were reasonable.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting summary judgment to the third-party insurer, striking the appellants' third-party claim.

The Master concluded that the plaintiff's claim against the appellants fell outside the insuring agreement because the appellants were acting as a general contractor rather than a building material wholesaler, and the damages did not result from an accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations clearly related to the appellants' activities as a contractor and that foundation settlement due to inadequate soil conditions could not reasonably be characterized as an accident.