Chris G. Paliare

The plaintiffs settled with two defendants under a Pierringer agreement and served a redacted copy on the remaining defendant, the City of Brampton.

Brampton's counsel unredacted the document, discovered the settlement amount, and disclosed it to his clients.

The plaintiffs moved to remove Brampton's counsel of record.

The court found the counsel's conduct blameworthy but dismissed the motion, concluding that removal and adjourning the imminent trial would be an extreme response since the disclosure did not prejudice the trial process itself.

The applicants, acting as alternative Attorneys for Property, applied for an order declaring the 86-year-old respondent incapable of managing her property and appointing a guardian of property.

The respondent opposed the appointment, arguing she retained capacity to manage her property with assistance and could execute a new power of attorney.

Relying on expert capacity assessments, the court found that while the respondent had mild cognitive impairment and required assistance, she retained the capacity to instruct counsel and to make or revoke a power of attorney.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that the respondent's ability to execute a new power of attorney constituted a less restrictive alternative to guardianship.

The appellant appealed a judgment awarding over one million dollars in damages to the respondents for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge discharged the jury after finding that defence counsel breached the rule in Browne v. Dunn by failing to cross-examine the plaintiff on a significant piece of evidence regarding fluid leaking from his ear, which was later introduced through expert witnesses.

The trial judge found the breach irreparably tainted the jury and proceeded with a bench trial, ultimately accepting the plaintiff's evidence and rejecting the defendant's malingering theory.

The Court of Appeal upheld all aspects of the trial judge's decision, including the finding of a Browne v. Dunn breach, the discharge of the jury, the qualification of a treating physician as an expert witness, and the damages award.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of WSIAT decisions granting breast cancer benefits to three communications dispatchers under the firefighter occupational disease presumption.

The WSIAT had ruled that evidence of the dispatchers' lack of exposure to fire suppression hazards could not be considered to rebut the presumption.

The Divisional Court found this interpretation unreasonable, as it contradicted the plain meaning of the statute and the binding WSIB policy, which allowed the presumption to be rebutted by evidence that employment was not a significant contributing factor.

The WSIAT decisions were quashed and the original WSIB decisions denying benefits were restored.

At a case management conference, the parties agreed to hold the applicant's application for judicial review in abeyance pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on a request for reconsideration under section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The court endorsed the agreement, setting a timetable for the filing of amended notices and application records following the release of the Tribunal's decision.

This costs endorsement followed a decision on an appeal and cross-appeal.

Given the divided success of the parties on both the appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The parties entered into a contract in 1999 for the provision of market pricing data.

The appellant, a custodial bank, redistributed the data to its numerous affiliates without authorization.

The respondent discovered the breach in 2016 and sued.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the contract and awarded damages based on a rateable approach, but also awarded damages for sharing data with a specific affiliate.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding, concluding the contract only authorized the appellant itself to access the data.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to change his unentered judgment and rejected the appellant's limitations defence.

On damages, the Court struck the award relating to the specific affiliate as double compensation but otherwise upheld the damages assessment, including an adverse inference drawn against the appellant for spoliation of evidence.

The respondent, Paul Wynn, brought a motion to bifurcate two key issues in a complex family law proceeding: the enforceability of a marriage contract and the determination of Paul's beneficial interest in significant family properties and businesses, including bare trust claims.

The added respondents supported the bifurcation of the property issue.

The applicant, Leslie Wynn, opposed the motion, seeking a single trial for all issues.

The court granted the motion, ordering the severance of issues into three separate trials or segments.

The court found that bifurcation was convenient and in the interests of justice due to the case's complexity, the potential for significant cost and time savings by avoiding extensive valuations, and the increased prospects for early settlement, concluding that there would be no undue prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying his claims for ongoing permanent disability pensions and other benefits related to workplace injuries from 1985.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that WSIAT's decisions were logical, transparent, and amply supported by the medical evidence and applicable policies.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal decision barring their civil action for a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant was struck by a dump truck driven by a co-worker while walking back from a personal bank errand during his workday.

The Tribunal found the applicant was in the course of employment because he was required to carry and answer a work-issued cell phone during his break, thereby retaining employer control.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its policies and the resulting decision were reasonable and owed deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for a psychological impairment entitlement arising from a 2006 workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions, work history, multiple sources of pain, substance use, and relationship breakdown were the primary factors, and that the workplace injury was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

This appeal concerned the appropriate remedy for a party who deliberately accessed the opposing party's privileged information.

The application judge had struck the appellant's Notice of Appearance, barred them from filing evidence, and ordered the Partition Application to proceed undefended.

The appellant argued that this remedy was unpleaded, unproven, and that lesser remedies were available.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's decision.

The court found no error in applying the three-part test for unauthorized access to privileged documents, particularly given the appellant's failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice or propose effective alternative remedies.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting benefits to a worker who sustained paraplegia in a motor vehicle accident while driving a company truck.

The worker was driving home from work with coworkers and was found to be impaired by alcohol.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded the worker was in the course of employment and that, despite his serious and wilful misconduct in driving impaired, he was entitled to benefits under s. 17 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because his injuries resulted in a serious impairment.

The Applicant brought a motion for judgment, alleging that the Respondent's principal, Paul Halyk, accessed confidential and privileged communications between the Applicant's principal and its legal counsel.

The court found that Halyk accessed privileged material and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, as he did not provide specific details about the extent of his review.

While declining to grant judgment on the Application due to insufficient evidentiary record for the underlying merits, the court ordered the Respondent's Notice of Appearance struck, allowing the Application to proceed as undefended.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting loss of earnings benefits to a firefighter who was terminated for cause but subsequently diagnosed with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal applied the 'worker conduct' line of cases, finding that the worker's condition rendered him unemployable and that his loss of earnings resulted from the compensable injury rather than his termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and its assessment of the medical evidence were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained after falling from a ladder at work.

The Tribunal had expanded his initial entitlement to include bicipital tendinitis and a rotator cuff tear but upheld the termination of benefits as of September 2015 and denied entitlement for left shoulder impingement and subsequent surgery.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal's decisions were justified, intelligible, and transparent, as they were supported by the evidentiary record.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review for delay.

The applicant commenced the application 10 months after the final reconsideration decision, arguing that the COVID-19 suspension of limitation periods under O. Reg 73/20 applied.

The court found that even if the suspension did not apply, the four-month delay beyond the common law six-month timeline was not inordinate.

The court held that the delay was reasonably explained by the pandemic context and caused no actual prejudice to the respondent.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The applicant, a telecommunications contractor, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that refused to change its business classification from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, or alternatively, to reclassify it from Rate Group 704 to Rate Group 983.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the WSIAT's conclusions were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

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

During a trial of an issue on damages arising from an application, the applicant objected to numerous pieces of viva voce evidence introduced by the respondents.

The court had previously directed that the damages trial proceed on the closed record as it existed when the application was initially argued.

The court applied a bright-line test, ruling that any evidence not actually found in the underlying application record was inadmissible to prevent trial by ambush.

The court sustained the majority of the applicant's objections, rejecting the respondents' arguments that the new evidence was merely a permissible amplification of the existing record or a necessary response to the applicant's expert.

The applicant sought judicial review of five decisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal spanning from 2008 to 2018.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the first four decisions due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, noting both presumed and actual prejudice as the Tribunal's records had been destroyed.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's 2018 decision refusing to reconsider a 2009 decision, finding it reasonable given the unexplained seven-year delay in requesting the reconsideration.