Chris G. Paliare

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a residential development that would allegedly interfere with the public's view of the Legislative Building.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for leave to appeal and found that while the proposed appeal raised a question of law, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision regarding the interpretation of the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal on liability and partial success on the costs appeal, the respondents sought costs of the appeal totaling $675,880.87.

The appellant argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount due to divided success and duplication of counsel by the amalgamated municipal respondents.

The Court of Appeal awarded the respondents one set of costs, fixed at $125,000, reflecting the straightforward nature of the legal issues, the duplication of argument, and the appellant's partial success on the costs appeal.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to attend a mandatory Record Keeping Workshop, and the resulting 60-day suspension.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction because it did not require proof of a formal Council resolution making the workshop mandatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that official College notices were sufficient evidence that attendance was mandatory, especially since the appellant never opened his mail from the College.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's history of ignoring College communications.

The appellant, operator of a retirement home, appealed the dismissal of its action for misfeasance in public office against the City of Hamilton and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, arising from an order to comply issued in 1994.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's costs award of over $4 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the misfeasance claim, finding the public officials acted lawfully and in good faith to protect vulnerable residents.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the award to a partial indemnity scale and adjusting for duplication of counsel after the City and Region amalgamated.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The respondent chiropractor commenced treating his cohabiting partner as a patient.

The discipline committee found him guilty of professional misconduct by sexual abuse under the Health Professions Procedural Code, which mandates a five-year licence revocation for sexual intercourse with a patient.

The Divisional Court set aside the decision, ruling that the committee must determine whether the sexual activity arose out of the spousal relationship or the professional-patient relationship.

The Court of Appeal allowed the College's appeal, holding that the Code requires no such inquiry; the offence is complete upon the concurrence of a sexual relationship and a health care professional-patient relationship.

The appellants, out-of-province resort operators, appealed decisions dismissing their motions to stay or dismiss personal injury actions for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal convened a five-judge panel to reconsider the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction.

The Court modified the Muscutt test by elevating the weight given to Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a presumption of a real and substantial connection for most of its subrules.

The Court also collapsed the fairness factors and clarified the distinction between jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

Applying the revised test, the Court found a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the appellants in both cases and upheld the motion judges' decisions that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered a brain impairment.

His initial Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) was 3 out of 15, but improved to 14 out of 15 shortly after arriving at the hospital.

The trial judge ruled that the appellant did not suffer a catastrophic impairment because his GCS scores improved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment under O. Reg. 461/96 only requires a single GCS score of 9 or less within a reasonable time following the accident, provided there is a brain impairment.

The fact that subsequent scores were higher is irrelevant.

The appellant appealed a jury decision dismissing his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

On appeal, he sought to introduce fresh evidence, alleging the respondent's trial counsel improperly cross-examined him on an inaccurate diagram of the intersection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test for discoverability and there was no support for the allegations of improper conduct.

Furthermore, there was ample evidence to support the jury's findings on liability and causation.

The applicant Union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its grievances.

The Union argued that work paid as maintenance under the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement was actually construction and should have been paid at a higher scale under the Principal Agreement.

The Board found the Union was estopped from relying on the Principal Agreement because its business agent agreed the work would be done under the GPMA.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's application of estoppel, despite section 162 of the Labour Relations Act, was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed an OMB decision regarding an application by the respondent.

After leave to appeal was partially granted, the lake in question was reclassified as under threshold, rendering the appeal moot.

The respondent subsequently withdrew her application before the OMB.

The parties sought costs for the leave motion, perfection of the appeal, and the appearance.

The Divisional Court ordered no costs, finding that the appeal became moot through external circumstances and no fault of the respondents.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee finding of professional misconduct and mandatory revocation of his registration for sexually abusing a patient.

The appellant and the complainant had a pre-existing intimate and sexual relationship before she became his patient.

The Divisional Court found the Committee's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider whether the sexual relationship arose out of the pre-existing spousal relationship rather than the professional-patient relationship, misinterpreting the concept of 'incidental' treatment.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

Costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The court awarded costs of the appeal and cross-appeal to the respondent (appellant-by-cross-appeal) on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $27,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Law Society of Upper Canada appealed a decision of its Appeal Panel restoring the membership of a former judge who had resigned following findings of serious sexual misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appeal Panel's findings that the Hearing Panel erred in applying the enhanced 'Bernstein' standard of proof and in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to impose conditions on a restored licence.

The Court confirmed that the standard of proof for restoration is a simple balance of probabilities, the burden of proof lies on the applicant, and the Law Society has broad jurisdiction to impose conditions on a restored licence to protect the public interest.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for breach of a film financing contract.

The appellants argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, failed to hear oral argument before releasing his decision, and sought to introduce fresh evidence that the trial judge repeatedly fell asleep during the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons sufficient and that the lack of oral argument did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

While the fresh evidence regarding the sleeping judge was admitted, the court held the appellants could not rely on it because they made a deliberate tactical decision not to raise the issue during the trial.

The appellant appealed a decision granting declaratory relief to the respondent regarding an easement and an undertaking to grant a further access easement.

The appellant argued the easements were conditional on the respondent building a synagogue on its retained lands, which it later decided to develop for residential purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no language in the agreements or undertaking restricting the use of the easements to a synagogue, and no evidence that the change in use would increase the burden on the servient tenement.

The respondent's cross-appeal to stay the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation until the easement was registered was allowed.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a suspension.

The misconduct related to administering Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy to a mentally disabled patient without proper consent, which was found to be outside the scope of chiropractic practice.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by making findings on uncharged matters, failing to give adequate notice, and erring in its credibility assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had adequate notice through pre-hearing disclosure and that the Committee's credibility findings and penalty were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a proposed purchase agreement complied with the transfer provisions of a joint venture agreement.

The joint venture agreement required a co-owner to sell 'all' of its interest if selling without consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding the interest was restricted to the plaza portion of the property.

The plain wording of the agreement and commercial reality dictated that the interest also included a vendor take-back mortgage and shareholder loans.

A declaration was issued that the purchase agreement did not comply with the joint venture agreement.

The employer brought an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had upheld a union grievance, finding that fire restoration work at a Petro-Canada site was 'construction work' under the Labour Relations Act and governed by the provincial agreement, rather than the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement.

The employer argued the Board erred in its application of the doctrine of estoppel and lacked jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons and that its decision on the nature of the work and the application of estoppel was reasonable.