David S. Reiter

The respondent, a convenience store clerk, sold cigarettes to a 17-year-old test shopper after misreading the birth year on the shopper's identification due to 'human error'.

She was convicted of selling tobacco to a minor under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, but the summary conviction appeal court overturned the conviction, finding her honest mistake satisfied the statutory defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the statutory due diligence defence requires a reasonable belief formed after exercising reasonable care in reviewing the identification, which a mere unexplained human error does not satisfy.

In a negligence action concerning alleged property damage caused by a gas shutoff, the defendant utility brought a motion under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine two non‑party witnesses who serviced the property’s heating system.

The witnesses had created conflicting documents regarding service dates and billing records, raising questions about whether the gas supply had been shut off at the time alleged.

The court held that examinations of the non‑parties were necessary because they were the only individuals able to clarify key factual issues regarding furnace maintenance and the creation of the disputed records.

The defendant was granted leave to examine the non‑party witnesses.

The plaintiff’s motion for further production of records was granted in part, requiring production of certain account and procedural records, while her request to examine the defendant’s employees was dismissed.

MasterCard brought a motion to stay an Ontario action commenced by Aldo Group Inc., arguing that a forum selection clause in its license agreements with acquiring banks required the dispute to be heard in New York.

Aldo, a merchant, was not a party to those agreements but had a processing agreement with Moneris that specified Ontario as the exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found that Aldo's claims against MasterCard were direct claims in tort and unjust enrichment, not claims of equitable subrogation.

Therefore, Aldo was not bound by the New York forum selection clause.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The respondent city sought costs against the appellants following an appeal of convictions under the Building Code Act.

The appellants had appealed their convictions and sentences of fines totaling $47,500.00.

The court upheld the convictions but reduced the fines to $21,000.00, which matched an offer to settle made by the city.

The city sought to recover solicitor and client costs of $18,258.00 incurred after making the settlement offer.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the case was not exceptional and that cost awards are rare in Provincial Offences litigation, which are intended to be informal proceedings accessible to lay persons.

The applicant, a pipe fitter, was seriously injured in a gas explosion and commenced a civil action for damages.

The respondents brought a 'right to sue' application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), which determined the applicant was a worker, not an independent contractor, and thus barred from suing.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIAT's decision was reasonable, grounded in evidence, and properly applied the legal test for independent contractor status.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order appointing an investigative receiver over it.

The moving party argued the motion judge erred by not first finding evidence of fraud or dissipation of assets.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge applied the correct test under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and that the appointment was just and convenient given the interconnectedness of the moving party with bankrupt companies and the flow of funds between them.

The test for leave to appeal was not met.

The applicants, a natural gas utility and a locator company, sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision that ordered a new trial on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Technical Standards and Safety Act.

The charges arose from a fatal natural gas explosion caused when an excavator struck an unmarked pipeline.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal did not raise questions of law alone that were essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice under section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they owed the respondent commission under an oral contract for the sale of stone.

The appellants argued the trial judge ignored evidence that not all the stone had been sold, which was the triggering term for the commission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The trial judge's conclusion was supported by the respondent's evidence, which she found credible, and an admission by the appellants that commission was owed.

At a preliminary hearing for three grievances raising pension issues, the Employer requested particulars.

The Union consented, and the Board ordered the Union to provide written particulars of the remedies sought and the facts relied upon.

Additionally, an individual grievor attended with independent counsel.

The Board ruled that the Union has carriage of the grievances and the individual grievor does not have the right to be represented by independent counsel.

The appellant appealed a two-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario for serving an intoxicated customer.

The appellant argued there was no evidence to support the finding and that the Board's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's conclusions and no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In an employer appeal under the Employment Standards Act, the Board ruled on two interim issues.

First, the Board held that the employer's counsel could not cross-examine the self-represented employee on the details of her criminal record, as such details had no probative value regarding her credibility in this civil proceeding.

Second, the Board ordered the partial release of funds held in trust by the Director of Employment Standards, finding that the employee's claims for termination pay and certain wages were time-barred under section 82.3 of the Act, thereby reducing the employer's maximum potential liability.