Charles T. Hackland

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.

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 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 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 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.