Coo J.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify an action against an investment advisor for negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy as a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge made no error in principle and correctly concluded that a class action was not the preferable procedure due to the individual issues of detrimental reliance.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which found her claim for damages against the landlords was res judicata.

The tenant had previously sought damages for missing stored possessions, but the Tribunal initially ruled it lacked jurisdiction under the former wording of the Tenant Protection Act.

Following a legislative amendment clarifying jurisdiction, the tenant brought a fresh application, which the Tribunal dismissed on the basis of res judicata.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law in applying res judicata and that its rigorous application would be unfair given the uncertainty in the law at the material time.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to be heard on the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the Commissioner's conclusion that the complaint could be more appropriately dealt with under the Labour Relations Act and that the applicant had already engaged in mediation during the arbitration process.

The court held that the Commissioner's decision was not patently unreasonable and awarded costs to the respondents.