David R. Aston

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Financial Services Commission of Ontario decision finding that the respondent was injured in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent was injured while attempting a headstand on a 'stripper pole' inside a mobile party bus.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the decision, finding it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to conclude that, given the specific nature of the vehicle, the headstand constituted an ordinary use of the vehicle and did not break the chain of causation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's order substituting a former employee as the discovery witness for the corporate defendant instead of its president and CEO.

The plaintiff argued the former employee was not an eligible witness under Rule 31.03(2)(a) and that he should have been granted an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff could not raise the eligibility issue for the first time on appeal and that the motion judge did not err in refusing the adjournment.

The appellant husband appealed three provisions of a final order made at a settlement conference regarding retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and ongoing spousal support.

The Divisional Court found that the conference judge bullied the self-represented husband into an equivocal consent, misinformed him about the law, made inappropriate comments about his cultural background, and denied him procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed, and the support provisions were set aside without prejudice to the wife's claims.

The appellant solicitor appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $25,000 plus interest to his former client for professional negligence.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in law regarding causation when finding there was a reasonable prospect of setting aside an order dismissing the client's counterclaim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were fully supported by the record and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

At the hearing, the applicant attempted to raise new arguments and issues that were not raised before the arbitrator.

Citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Alberta Teachers' Association, the Divisional Court refused to consider the new issues, noting the prejudice to the respondent and the loss of the specialized tribunal's views.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to remit the matter back to the arbitrator without consent, which the respondent refused.

The court offered the applicant the option to withdraw the application without a determination on the merits.

On consent, the application was withdrawn, and the applicant was ordered to pay $3,500 in costs to the respondent.

The applicants, two physicians, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board to proceed with a review of a Complaints Committee decision regarding their conduct, despite the complainants having withdrawn their requests for review against the applicants.

The Board argued it retained jurisdiction to review all parties named in a multiple-member decision until the matter was completely withdrawn.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's interpretation of its jurisdiction under the Health Professions Procedural Code was unreasonable, as the statute does not confer discretionary jurisdiction to review a decision where no request is maintained.

The application was allowed and the Board's decision to proceed with the review was quashed.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict that found him 25% liable for a motor vehicle accident and awarded him $25,000 in general damages, which was barred from recovery by the statutory deductible.

The appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and that defence counsel made inflammatory remarks to the jury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's verdict was open to them based on the evidence and credibility issues, and that defence counsel's remarks did not warrant setting aside the verdict.

On a preliminary issue in an appeal, the Divisional Court ruled that the Social Benefits Tribunal was not properly a party to the proceeding.

The court noted there was no separate relief claimed by the appellant that was not available against the Ministry, and no jurisdictional issue was raised.

No costs were awarded.

The applicants continued their application to seek a contribution towards costs from the decision-maker.

The Divisional Court found that while the continuation was not an abuse of process, the applicants failed to establish a factual foundation to seek costs from the decision-maker.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding him ineligible for disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual conclusions.

The court also held that the appellant's human rights and Charter claims were not properly before it, and that his request for retroactive benefits to 2003 was precluded because earlier applications had been abandoned.

The appellants appealed an order under the Business Corporations Act setting the fair market value of shares in a corporation and directing a buyout.

The appellants argued the application judge erred in valuing a specific property at $400,000 without providing adequate reasons for selecting that figure among competing appraisals.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that meaningful appellate review was impossible due to the lack of explanation.

Furthermore, the application judge committed a palpable and overriding error by inserting the lower property value into a valuation model without adjusting the corresponding tax consequences.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new determination of the property's value.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim for $25,000 on a promissory note and awarding the respondent $10,030 on a counterclaim for construction defects.

The trial judge found the promissory note lacked consideration and was obtained by misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of damages.

The appellant massage therapist appealed a decision of the Discipline Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct for authorizing an employee to issue false receipts.

He argued the panel erred by convicting him on a different theory of liability than advanced by the prosecutor and erred in its factual findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the appellant knew the case he had to meet, and holding that the panel's credibility findings and ultimate conclusion were reasonable.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the cross appeal.

Because the appeal and cross appeal were intertwined, the court adjourned both matters without a fixed date so they could be heard together following a motion under section 6(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Enforcement of the payment order was stayed pending further order.

The appellant father appealed a child support order, arguing the trial judge erred in finding his step-daughter was a child of the marriage, in determining his income to be $40,000, and in ordering the full table amount for his biological daughter despite a joint custody order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or significant misapprehension of the evidence.

The trial judge properly applied the Chartier test for the step-child, made credibility findings regarding the appellant's income, and correctly noted the appellant's parenting time did not meet the 40 percent threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant, a nursing student on academic probation, sought judicial review of a decision by the Dean of Nursing suspending her from a clinical placement, which effectively required her withdrawal from the program.

She alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, failure to apply the professional suitability policy, and procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, substantial compliance with the policy, and that the subsequent appeal hearing was a hearing de novo that cured any alleged procedural defects.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent school board to temporarily remove their two children from their school.

The board made the decision after the father received threatening emails from someone with access to the school's computers, which also threatened the children.

The Divisional Court found that the board's decision was reasonable given the safety concerns and the ongoing police investigation, and dismissed the application for judicial review and injunctive relief.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding their involvement in a collapsed investment structure.

The first appeal argued that televised comments by the Commission's Chair created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed this appeal, finding that the Chair was acting within his statutory authority and that the Commission's structure adequately separated investigative and adjudicative functions.

The second appeal challenged the Commission's findings on the merits, alleging breaches of procedural fairness, misapplication of rules, and errors in finding the appellants were the directing minds who misled staff.

The court dismissed the second appeal, finding the procedures fair and the factual conclusions reasonable.

The College of Nurses of Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which refused to dismiss a human rights complaint filed by a nurse.

The nurse alleged discrimination based on disability after the College's Registration Committee imposed conditions on her certificates of registration.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) had previously reviewed and upheld the conditions, finding they reasonably accommodated her disability while protecting the public.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code by failing to defer to HPARB's specialized public protection mandate and by improperly assessing the adequacy of HPARB's reasons rather than whether the substance of the complaint was appropriately dealt with.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent university sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent university fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the application served no public benefit, was based on voluminous materials, and was presented in a laborious manner that added significantly to the university's costs.