David J. Nadeau

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision granting a non-suit motion and dismissing his slander action.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Because the appellant failed to set out the amount of his claim in the statement of claim as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court could not determine if the claim fell within its $50,000 monetary jurisdiction.

Consequently, the court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by a panel of the respondent commission, which upheld findings of guilt and increased penalties related to the treatment of a horse.

The applicant was entitled to a hearing conducted as a trial de novo.

The Divisional Court found that the panel fundamentally erred by treating the hearing as a review of the initial judges' decision and applying a reasonableness standard of review, rather than determining the charges on a balance of probabilities.

The application was granted, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of severed portions of statistical reports regarding court activity.

The reports were created by the Ministry at the request of the Chief Justice.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commissioner erred in finding the reports were under the Ministry's 'control', the reports were nonetheless in the Ministry's 'custody' because they were integrated into the Ministry's operations and used for its own core functions.

The court concluded that disclosing the severed portions would not compromise judicial independence and dismissed the application.

The City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision finding that Home Depot's application to develop a major retail store in an Employment Area did not constitute a 'conversion' under the Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the Board's interpretation of planning documents is reasonableness.

The Court found the Board's conclusion—that major retail use was already contemplated in the Official Plan and thus not a conversion—was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board had rescinded the Society's decision to refuse an adoption application by the respondent foster parents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's mandate under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act allows it to make substantive determinations regarding the best interests of the child, rather than being limited to procedural fairness.

The Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness and found the Board's decision to place the children for adoption with the respondents was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision ordering the disclosure of his compelled evidence to co-respondents in a regulatory proceeding.

The applicant argued the evidence was privileged based on an undertaking from Commission staff and that the Charter applied due to the risk of quasi-criminal proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's interpretation of the undertaking was reasonable and that the Charter did not apply to the administrative proceeding.

During a summary judgment motion involving a mini-trial, the motions judge ordered that a paragraph in the self-represented respondent's affidavit be treated as a counterclaim for one million dollars against the appellant bank.

The bank appealed this order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that an appeal of a ruling made during a summary judgment motion should normally await the completion of the motion, similar to rulings made during a trial.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate's decision.

The respondent was injured in an accident and subsequently filed an amended tax return reporting previously unreported income.

The Director's Delegate held that under s. 64.1(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the respondent was entitled to have his income replacement benefits adjusted to reflect the higher income reported in the amended return.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Director's Delegate's interpretation of s. 64.1(2) was both reasonable and correct.