David R. Aston

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitration award regarding the promotion rights of a firefighter.

The arbitrator had ruled that the firefighter was not qualified for promotion to Lieutenant because he did not have fifteen years of continuous service in the Fire Fighting Division, interpreting 'service' as synonymous with 'seniority'.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, finding the arbitrator's interpretation unreasonable.

The Court held that the collective agreement clearly distinguished between 'service' and 'seniority', and the arbitrator improperly inserted the word 'continuous' into the provision, contrary to the parties' expressed intent.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to revoke a real estate broker's registration, instead imposing conditions.

The broker had been involved in transactions where properties were flipped at inflated prices, facilitating mortgage fraud, though the Tribunal found he lacked actual knowledge of the fraud.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably assessed the broker's past conduct, including mitigating factors, and appropriately applied the balance of probabilities standard.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof and failed to properly apply the statutory test for registration entitlement.

The employer brought an application for judicial review to quash an arbitration award that found supervisors were included in the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the arbitration board chair denied natural justice by circulating a draft award without a prior meeting of the panel, and that the majority's interpretation of the collective agreement was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no agreement to hold a meeting prior to drafting, that the employer nominee had an opportunity to participate, and that the majority's interpretation of the recognition clause was reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its operation of a go-kart business pending trial.

The parties had entered into a Management Agreement, which the defendants purported to terminate by changing the locks, alleging breaches by the plaintiff.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the validity of the termination, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if put out of business, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted subject to several conditions, including the timely payment of amounts due under the agreement.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering her to pay her proportionate share of post-secondary tuition fees for her adult son under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant argued the son had withdrawn from parental control and was no longer a dependent child.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determination that the son remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act while pursuing his education.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision that overturned an arbitrator's order granting an adjournment and requiring the insured to attend an independent medical examination.

The insured had delivered new orthopedic reports shortly before the scheduled arbitration.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the interlocutory judicial review, finding that proceeding without the examination would deny the insurer procedural fairness and amount to trial by ambush.

The Court held that the Director's Delegate unreasonably fettered the arbitrator's discretion to ensure a fair hearing by requiring 'extraordinary circumstances' for an adjournment.

The decision of the Director's Delegate was quashed and the arbitrator's decision restored.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision finding that the respondent's notice requesting arbitration was filed within the 90-day limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, agreeing that the mediator's report was 'given' when received by the parties, and that delivering the notice to the general reception of the Financial Services Commission satisfied the filing rules.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent lawyer unpaid legal fees.

As a preliminary matter, the appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence, alleging the respondent committed perjury and fabricated documents at trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the respondent's explanations plausible and corroborated.

On the main appeal, the court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding personal liability and the quantum of fees.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000 due to the serious but unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of an Order-in-Council revoking his appointment following a recommendation by a Hearing Panel of the Justices of the Peace Review Council.

The applicant argued the Panel erred in denying severance of allegations, gave inadequate reasons, imposed an unreasonable disposition, and that he was denied procedural fairness by not being allowed to make submissions to the Executive Council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Panel's decisions reasonable and concluding that the statutory scheme provides procedural fairness during the hearing process, not before the Executive Council.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the public disclosure of the first three digits of postal codes and the number of sexual offenders in each area from the Sex Offender Registry.

The Ministry argued the Commissioner erred in interpreting the law enforcement exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner applied the correct legal test, did not misapprehend the evidence, and reasonably concluded that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would cause endangerment or non-compliance with reporting requirements.

The applicant, a university instructor, sought judicial review of an investigator's report and the university's subsequent determination dismissing her workplace harassment and discrimination complaint against a colleague.

The parties had previously agreed to bypass the collective agreement's formal inquiry panel process in favour of a private investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the customized, private process lacked the requisite public character to be amenable to judicial review, and also dismissed a motion to set aside a single judge's order striking the applicant's affidavit for containing inadmissible evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that ordered the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration for 14 days.

The appellant argued the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test under s. 47(1)(f) of the Highway Traffic Act by focusing on punishment rather than future safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably balanced the appellant's poor safety record against its recent remedial efforts, and that the sanction was necessary for public safety.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of a Superior Court judge who had dismissed his appeals from two Small Claims Court decisions.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court agreed it lacked jurisdiction, noting that the Superior Court judge was hearing appeals, not a motion.

Consequently, the proper route of appeal was to the Court of Appeal with leave under section 6(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was dismissed without a determination on the merits.

The appellant appealed a decision denying certification of a class proceeding.

The appellant sought to proceed with the appeal based on a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that was not before the motions judge.

The Divisional Court held that it could only review the decision based on the original record and was not the proper forum for a first-instance decision on certification based on new pleadings.

Given the appellant's intention to seek an amendment regardless of the appeal's outcome, the appeal was deemed moot and stayed, with directions for the appellant to bring a motion to amend and certify in the court below.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Coroner refusing to issue a summons for the production of videos depicting interactions between correctional staff and the deceased, Ashley Smith.

The Divisional Court found that the Coroner applied an incorrect and overly stringent test by requiring a demonstrated 'nexus' between the videos and the death, rather than assessing whether the evidence was 'material' to the purposes of the inquest.

The Court quashed the Coroner's decision and remitted the issue for reconsideration, holding that the denial of access to potentially relevant evidence constituted a breach of natural justice.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel affirming his disbarment for professional misconduct.

The Hearing Panel found he knowingly participated in a dishonest scheme to obtain mortgage funds by being reckless and willfully blind to fraudulent real estate transactions.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found no error in the panels' conclusions regarding misconduct or the penalty of disbarment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of records containing homeowners' addresses and environmental test results.

The Divisional Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

The court found that the information arguably constituted 'personal information' and that procedural fairness, as well as potentially section 28 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, required that the affected homeowners be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before their information could be disclosed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for making false statements to his disability insurers regarding his capacity to work.

The Committee had suspended his certificate of registration for six months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's conclusions were reasonable, supported by ample evidence, and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonableness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievance regarding her layoff and dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence, and did not involve a denial of procedural fairness.

During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.

The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.

Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.