David R. Aston

A police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) that dismissed his appeal from a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct.

The officer argued the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that OCCPS applied an incorrect legal test to determine when sufficient facts came to the Chief's attention, rendering its decision unreasonable.

The Court further held that the officer's guilty plea did not waive his right to appeal the jurisdictional defect, as consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a statutory tribunal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its appeal of a Master's decision.

The Master had allowed the defendants to continue a refusals motion despite having served a Trial Record, finding that leave under Rule 48.04(1) was either unnecessary or should be granted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, holding that the Master's exercise of discretion to grant leave was unassailable and that the proposed appeal did not meet the threshold test under Rule 62.02(4).

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its appeal of a Master's decision.

The Master had ruled that the defendants did not require leave under Rule 48.04(1) to continue a refusals motion after serving a Trial Record, or alternatively, that leave should be granted.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the order and held that the Master's discretion in granting leave was unassailable.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Labour's delegate to revoke a prior order that authorized a multi-site joint health and safety committee for the respondent school board.

The applicants argued the delegate failed to consider statutory criteria, exercise discretion properly, and provide procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delegate's decision was a discretionary administrative decision akin to public policy, owed significant deference, and was reasonable given the committee's dysfunction.

The moving party, Mary Darkeff, brought an unopposed motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing her appeal for delay and to extend the time for perfecting the appeal.

The court noted several deficiencies in the appeal materials, including the moving party's lack of authority to represent a corporate defendant and an unclear Notice of Appeal.

The court granted the motion conditionally, setting aside the dismissal and extending the time to perfect the appeal, provided the appellants correct the noted deficiencies within 30 days.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Halton appealed an order of the Ontario Municipal Board granting a $60,000 costs premium to the respondent.

The Board had relied on a Court of Appeal decision that was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, which held that a risk premium cannot be exacted against an unsuccessful party.

The Divisional Court found that the Board's rules focus on the conduct of a party, not the result achieved or the risk assumed by counsel.

The appeal was allowed and the costs premium was set aside.

Four organizations brought motions seeking intervener status in an appeal by Christian Horizons from a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal had found that Christian Horizons infringed the rights of an employee and could not rely on the special employment exemption in s. 24.1(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The court granted Egale Canada Inc., the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, and The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada intervener status as friends of the court.

The Ontario College of Catholic Bishops was granted leave to intervene as an added party with a limited right to file additional evidence.

The self-represented plaintiffs abandoned their motion for leave to appeal an order.

The defendants sought costs for the abandoned motion.

The court affirmed the defendants' presumptive entitlement to costs but reduced the quantum claimed, disallowing time spent on legal research and avoiding duplication of time between counsel.

Costs were fixed at $1,492.50.

The City of Toronto and Kingsway Residents Against Poor Planning brought motions for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision approving a zoning by-law amendment for a seven/eight-storey development.

The applicants argued the Board erred in law by applying the repealed Etobicoke Official Plan rather than the City's in-force Official Plan, relying on the 'Clergy Principle'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding the Board committed no error of law and properly exercised its discretion in weighing the evidence and applying the Clergy Principle.

The moving party sought a stay of an order compelling the sale of two properties pending an appeal.

The underlying application was brought under the Business Corporations Act to wind up a numbered corporation and compel the sale of the properties.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

While finding there was a serious issue to be tried, the court concluded the moving party would not suffer irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a decision certifying two actions as class proceedings on behalf of participating life insurance policyholders.

The appellants argued the motions judge erred in finding a class proceeding was the preferable procedure under s. 5(1)(d) of the Class Proceedings Act, asserting that the Insurance Companies Act provided adequate alternative remedies for stakeholders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge made no error in principle and reasonably concluded that a class proceeding offered juridical advantages, including case management, access to justice through contingency fees, and judicial supervision of remedies.

The father sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that permitted the mother to travel to Turkey with their four-and-a-half-year-old child for several months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, which was based on the best interests of the child, and noting that the issue did not involve matters of public importance as required by Rule 62.02(4).

The appellants appealed a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding they sexually harassed an employee and retaliated against her and her stepfather for making a human rights complaint.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings of liability, concluding that the admission of similar fact evidence was reasonable and the Tribunal's reasons, though sparse, met the minimum standard to support the findings of discrimination.

However, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons inadequate to support the compensation and public interest remedies ordered.

The Court substituted its own awards, reducing the special damages and mental anguish awards for both complainants, and set aside the public interest orders.

The Toronto Star made a freedom of information request for data from two police firearms databases, SOURCE and FATE.

The Adjudicator ordered partial disclosure of the SOURCE database but denied access to the FATE database under the law enforcement intelligence exemption.

Both the Ministry and the Star sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision regarding the FATE database but quashed the order disclosing the SOURCE database, finding that the Adjudicator unreasonably interpreted the 'law enforcement matter' exemption.

The appellants appealed a costs award of $60,267.39 made against them following the dismissal of their $50,000 claim under the simplified procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to apply the principle of proportionality and by focusing on the expectations of the winning party rather than the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

The costs award was reduced to $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that conducted an accounting between the parties following a failed joint venture in an excavating business.

The trial judge found the appellants owed the respondents a net amount of $3,271.60.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge exhibited bias, ignored evidence, and decided the case on an unpleaded issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no bias, no reviewable error in the accounting, and that the pleadings broadly contemplated an accounting.

The respondents' cross-appeal for costs was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision that directed his retroactive disability benefits be paid to his ex-wife, who was the head of their 'benefit unit' prior to their separation.

The Divisional Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that the benefits were for the benefit unit as a whole while the parties cohabited.

However, the Court found that the Director should have exercised administrative powers to ensure both parties received an equal share, given they were separated when entitlement was determined.

The Director was ordered to pay the appellant one half of the retroactive benefits.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal terminating his tenancy for the landlords' personal use.

The tenant alleged procedural fairness breaches, including the member's refusal to grant an adjournment and reasonable apprehension of bias.

Due to a mechanical malfunction, no transcript or tape recording of the tribunal proceedings was available.

The Divisional Court held that the absence of a record made it impossible to fairly assess the tenant's grounds of appeal, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The appeal was allowed, the tribunal's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different member.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order to sell a commercial property under the Partition Act.

The appellant claimed an oral agreement existed where the respondent relinquished her 50% interest in exchange for grocery store inventory.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred by not allowing a further affidavit and by not ordering a trial of an issue regarding ownership, as the doctrine of part performance might defeat the Statute of Frauds.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a trial of an issue was ordered.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that offset their damages claim against the respondents' claim for unpaid wages, resulting in a net amount owed to the respondents.

The appellants argued the trial judge exhibited bias, improperly limited evidence, and decided the case on an unpleaded issue.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's refusal to award costs to two dismissed defendants.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no reviewable error in the accounting, and that the pleadings were broad enough to encompass the accounting conducted.