David R. Aston

The father appealed an order finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction to hear the mother's application for child support.

The parents previously lived in France, where a French court made a custody, access, and child support order that contemplated the mother's relocation to Canada.

The mother subsequently moved to Ontario with the children and applied to change the child support and custody provisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the children are ordinarily resident in Ontario and have an independent legal right to support under the Family Law Act, the child support claim should be determined on its merits in Ontario.

The appellants, former officers of Coventree Inc., appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in Coventree's failure to disclose material changes in its business, contrary to section 75 of the Securities Act.

The Commission had found that changes to credit rating criteria and a subsequent disruption in the asset-backed commercial paper market constituted material changes requiring immediate disclosure.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, concluding that the Commission applied the correct legal tests, based its findings on sufficient evidence, and reasonably exercised its public interest jurisdiction in sanctioning the appellants.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed his complaint that his termination was tainted by anti-union animus.

The applicant argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard of proof and made several evidentiary errors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, applied the correct legal test, and was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

The plaintiffs appealed a decision denying certification of a proposed class proceeding against the manufacturers of the drug Seroquel, as well as the associated costs award.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act and that the plaintiffs failed to meet the evidentiary threshold for the remaining certification criteria.

The court also found no error in principle in the costs award, noting the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $30,000.

The applicant, a nurse, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding her complaints against her employer hospital.

The Adjudicator had found the hospital failed to accommodate her disability after October 2009 but dismissed claims of discrimination prior to that date, and awarded monetary compensation rather than reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decisions on the merits and remedy were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in limiting witness testimony to individual rather than systemic claims.

The appellant mother appealed a child protection judgment making her three children Crown wards.

She sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the trial judge erred by admitting and relying heavily on a court-ordered parenting assessment by Dr. Lynch, while disregarding competing medical reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence inadmissible as it was available at trial.

The court held the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in admitting Dr. Lynch's report under section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act, nor in preferring his evidence over the appellant's experts.

Claims of judicial bias and ineffective trial counsel were also dismissed.

The appellant mining company appealed an interim injunction that halted its exploration activities and required consultation with the respondent First Nation.

Prior to the appeal, the Mining Amendment Act, 2009 came into force, establishing a new legislative regime for exploration plans and permits involving Aboriginal interests.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the appeal, finding it moot because the rights and obligations of the parties now rested on the new statutory foundation, rendering the propriety of the original injunction an academic exercise.

The applicant college sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed two individual grievances, finding that two sessional employees had worked enough 'full months' to qualify for a rollover to probationary regular employees.

The Divisional Court found the arbitration board's reasons to be unintelligible and incomprehensible, failing the minimum requirements for deference.

The court quashed the award regarding the individual grievances and remitted them to a newly constituted Board of Arbitration.

The tenant appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy and awarding $20,000 in damages to the landlord following a fire.

The appellants argued errors of law regarding the cause of the fire, the validity of the N5 Form, and the damages award.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law regarding the fire's cause or the N5 Form, as these were factual findings.

While the Board may have erred by failing to consider the tenants' repair efforts and not ruling on a roofer's estimate, the Court found ample evidence supported the conclusion that damages exceeded $20,000.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award which found it had violated the Collective Agreement by changing a registered nurse's status from full-time to part-time.

To accommodate her disability, the nurse worked half her hours in her previous bargaining unit position and half in a non-bargaining unit administrative position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction and that his interpretation of the Collective Agreement, in light of the employer's duty to accommodate, was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding that he was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction was limited to questions of law and the appellant had only challenged findings of fact and the weighing of evidence.

The court found the Tribunal applied the proper legal test, adequately considered the medical evidence regarding the appellant's physical limitations, and reasonably factored in his refusal to take recommended medication.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal revoking his mortgage agent licence.

The Tribunal found that his past conduct, including a conflict of interest and recklessness with client funds, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not deal in mortgages with integrity and honesty.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on the merits as reasonable.

However, because the Tribunal imposed the most draconian penalty (revocation) without providing reasons as to why lesser penalties were not appropriate, the Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal solely to reconsider the issue of penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's alleged failure to intervene and enforce an approved waste management plan under s. 27 of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002.

The applicant argued that changes to tendering criteria constituted a 'material change' requiring the Minister's approval.

The Divisional Court quashed the application, finding that the Minister has no statutory duty to intervene or supervise operational decisions, and that the decision of what constitutes a 'material change' is a policy-laden function beyond the court's jurisdiction.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment that dismissed his claim for unpaid renovation fees and the respondents' counterclaim for defective work, while ordering the appellant to pay substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by implying a contractual term requiring the appellant to provide warranties, which contradicted the express written terms of the contract.

The court set aside the trial judgment, dismissed the counterclaim, and awarded the appellant his unpaid invoices totaling $22,727.54.

The appellant subcontractor registered a construction lien after not being paid.

The respondent mortgagee posted security to vacate the liens.

The property was sold, but proceeds were insufficient to pay the mortgages.

The appellant argued the posted security should cover the full amount owed by the owner to the general contractor, while the respondent argued it was limited to the 10 percent statutory holdback.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 78(2) of the Construction Lien Act, the mortgagee has priority over all but the basic holdback, and section 44(6) prevents the notice holdback from extending to the posted security.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application, which alleged that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit discriminated on the basis of marital and family status.

The Tribunal had found it lacked jurisdiction because the benefit was an integral part of taxation and thus excluded from the definition of 'services' under section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Tribunal's reconsideration process and concluding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the Code was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed a decision by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to take no further action regarding her complaints against two doctors.

The complaints related to a spinal anaesthetic administered in 1994 and subsequent care.

The Divisional Court found HPARB's decision reasonable, noting that the investigation was adequate and the treatment provided was within professional expectations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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

The applicant sought to review a decision from December 2000, having applied for reconsideration six times until November 2007, and commenced the judicial review in January 2011.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for delay and granted the motion, finding extreme delay, a vague explanation, and real possibility of prejudice to the Tribunal's process.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its application for judicial review to develop new evidence.

The Divisional Court addressed preliminary issues and exercised its discretion under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to decline to hear the application.

The court found the matter was not a review of a quasi-judicial decision, primarily concerned commercial interests, would require the court to perform a trial function, and that the applicant lacked standing.

The application was quashed without a determination on the merits.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her application for child support under the Divorce Act.

The hearing judge had dismissed the application on the basis that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction because there was a prior child support order made under the Family Law Act in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an application for corollary relief under the Divorce Act is a stand-alone application that supersedes a prior provincial order, and the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear it.