David R. Aston

The Minister of Transportation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondent $1,110,348 for the expropriation of a portion of her land.

The Minister argued the Board erred by deducting development and delay costs from the 'after value' of the remaining land, contending the compensation should be lower.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly applied the 'before and after' valuation method and properly interpreted the Expropriations Act regarding market value and injurious affection.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had rescinded orders made by a local Medical Officer of Health that prohibited smoking in several hospitality businesses.

The Board found that the Medical Officer of Health exceeded his statutory authority under section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act by issuing blanket, unit-wide orders rather than site-specific ones.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review and awarding costs to the respondent businesses.

The appellant was largely successful in having his most serious professional misconduct convictions set aside on appeal, but unsuccessful on his main ground of reasonable apprehension of bias, which consumed 90% of the appeal's time.

The appellant sought costs of $132,868.19.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the Divisional Court awarded the appellant reduced costs fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity scale to reflect the divided success.

The appellant's estate appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying reimbursement for out-of-country medical treatment.

The appellant, suffering from advanced ovarian cancer, travelled to Germany for chemotherapy and experienced a perforated bowel requiring immediate surgery.

The Board found that the bowel perforation was not 'unexpected' given her underlying condition, and thus did not qualify as an insured service under the regulations.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding it was supported by medical evidence that the complication was predictable.

The appellant, a dentist facing professional misconduct allegations, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee denying his request for an adjournment.

The appellant sought the adjournment due to the unavailability of his expert witness and because the hearing could not be completed in the allotted time.

When the request was refused, the appellant's counsel withdrew, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee properly exercised its discretion in denying the adjournment and that there was no breach of natural justice, procedural fairness, or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, arguing that the lack of a complete recording of the hearing deprived him of natural justice and his right to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lack of a recording did not prevent the court from properly disposing of the appeal based on the tribunal's detailed findings of fact and reasons.

The court upheld the tribunal's findings that the landlord illegally entered the rental unit and substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders.

He argued that a committee member's prior involvement with a Quality Assurance Committee created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the committee erred in refusing to qualify his proposed expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the bias claim but found the committee erred in refusing to qualify the expert witness.

The findings of misconduct that depended on expert testimony were quashed, and the penalty and costs were set aside and remitted to a newly constituted panel.

The father unsuccessfully appealed a trial decision in a child protection proceeding.

The mother, who supported the children's aid society on the appeal, sought costs of $14,000 on a substantial indemnity scale against the father.

The court held that under subrule 24(2) of the Family Law Rules, the presumption of costs does not apply in child protection cases, even as between parents.

As the father's appeal raised genuine issues and he did not behave unreasonably, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant County sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that private-home day care providers were employees of the County for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had applied the common law 'total relationship' and 'organization/integration' tests to conclude the providers were employees.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable.

The majority held that the Tribunal ignored or irrationally discounted evidence demonstrating that the providers were independent contractors, such as their contracts, tax filings, and level of independence.

The applicants, inmates awaiting trial at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, brought an application for judicial review challenging the implementation of a new telephone system that imposed an automatic twenty-minute time limit on outgoing calls.

They argued this restriction violated their freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter and section 5 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no statutory or Charter breach, and held that any such breach would be saved by section 1 of the Charter.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the application for pre-trial inmates, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.