Cunningham A.C.J.S.C.J.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario following a guilty plea for operating in a net trust deficit position and failing to maintain proper records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was statute-barred as it was filed out of time under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court also addressed the merits, concluding the Committee's decision was reasonable, the brief written reasons were sufficient, and the requirement to file audited financial statements for three years was within the Committee's jurisdiction.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of two interest arbitration awards that ordered retroactive wage increases for employees who were no longer actively employed.

The hospital argued that retroactivity was not a matter in dispute between the parties and that the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction and denied procedural fairness by deciding the issue without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that the board's decision was unreasonable because it failed to explain why it was necessary to deal with retroactivity when the parties had agreed it was not in dispute.

The Court also found a denial of procedural fairness and set aside the portion of the awards dealing with retroactivity.

The appellant appealed an order that denied retroactive child support and set ongoing support at $45.00 per month.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge made palpable and overriding errors by relying on unsworn submissions from unrepresented parties, failing to consider retroactive support for one of the children, and arbitrarily reducing the appellant's employment expenses without reasons.

The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for rehearing with directions for full financial disclosure.

The Commissioner of the OPP sought to stay a disciplinary hearing pending an application for judicial review based on a reasonable apprehension of bias by the adjudicator.

A motion judge denied the stay, finding the Commissioner lacked standing and failed to meet the test for a stay.

On review, the Divisional Court set aside the motion judge's order, holding that the Commissioner has standing to seek judicial review on procedural fairness grounds and that the proper test for a stay was met, as irreparable harm would result from continuing a hearing tainted by an apprehension of bias.

The stay was granted and the respondents' cross-motion to quash the application was dismissed.

Following the dissolution of the law firm representing the plaintiff in a proposed class proceeding, the plaintiff served a Notice of Change of Solicitors to appoint a new firm formed by some of the former partners.

The appellant, a firm formed by another former partner who had been the supervising lawyer, moved to set aside the Notice or replace the representative plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's choice of counsel was adequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no error of law and his decision was reasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that substituted a lengthy suspension without pay for the grievor's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the applicant's unexplained delay of over a year and a half in perfecting the application caused prejudice to the respondent and warranted dismissal.

Second, the arbitrator's decision to deny back wages was entirely reasonable and within his broad remedial jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The court found no denial of procedural fairness, as the issue of penalty was in play throughout the hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of a No Permit Order issued by a municipal building inspector regarding the construction of a front deck.

The inspector had measured the deck mid-construction and found it exceeded the two-foot height exemption for building permits.

The Divisional Court allowed fresh evidence showing the completed deck met the height requirements.

The Court held that the appropriate time for inspection was upon completion of the project, not mid-construction, and found the lower court's decision unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the No Permit Order rescinded, and costs awarded to the appellants.

The applicants, real estate brokers, applied for judicial review of decisions by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Discipline and Membership Appeals Committees, which found they acted unprofessionally in purchasing property from a client without proper disclosure or advising her to seek independent legal advice.

The Divisional Court determined the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Committees' conclusions that the applicants breached the Code of Ethics and were not entitled to costs were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants leased summer resort lots within Rondeau Provincial Park from the Crown.

The leases expressly restricted the use of the premises to recreational purposes and stated that the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 did not apply.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, arguing that the Act bound the Crown by necessary implication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not bind the provincial Crown and that the cottages do not constitute residential units within the meaning of the Act.

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.