Deena Baltman

The appellant objected to the involvement of the respondent's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest, and sought to have counsel removed.

The Divisional Court declined to make the order, noting that the objection was raised late, the lower court had already found no conflict, the quantum in issue was very small, and requiring the respondent to retain new counsel would cause undue delay and expense.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the contracting out of a 'locating function' previously performed by an Inspector.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the locating function constituted 'work' under the collective agreement.

The court held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's remedy was reasonableness.

The arbitrator's decision to award damages as an incentive for compliance, calculated based on the value of the work, was deemed reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff bank moved for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment against a corporate debtor and personal guarantors.

The court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the bank had an irrefutable claim for partial summary judgment.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal because the issue was not of general importance, holding that an allegedly incorrect application of Rule 20 does not automatically create a matter of general importance warranting an appeal.

Three appellants appealed decisions of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying payment for out-of-country medical treatment because they did not obtain prior written approval from the General Manager of OHIP.

The Divisional Court held that while the Health Insurance Act and regulations do not expressly confer discretion to grant retroactive prior approval, such authority is necessarily implied in urgent circumstances where prior approval cannot be obtained.

The Court rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations, promissory estoppel, limitation periods against minors, and sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Two of the appeals were allowed and remitted to the Board to determine if urgent circumstances existed, while the third was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with one of her complaints due to delay and not to refer six other complaints to a Tribunal for lack of sufficient evidence.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable, that conciliation was not attempted, and that she was denied procedural fairness and subjected to bias by investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's discretionary decisions were reasonable, conciliation had been attempted, and there was no merit to the allegations of bias or denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant, a teacher, was removed from the occasional teachers' list after sharing conspiracy theories with students.

The union agreed to investigate a grievance but required a psychiatric assessment, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the governing legislation permits the Board to use a consultation process rather than a formal hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative terminated and granting a writ of possession.

The co-operative had withdrawn her rent-geared-to-income subsidy because she failed to disclose her receipt of Ontario Works benefits since 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly concluded the co-operative's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding him liable under an indemnity agreement for a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant signed the agreement and that the landlord made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages.

The court held that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error.

The appellant law firm appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for an unpaid solicitor's account.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim solely because the account did not provide time dockets and an hourly rate.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that section 2(3) of the Solicitors Act permits lump sum billing provided there is a reasonable description of services rendered and a detailed statement of disbursements.

The court found the account was fair and reasonable, set aside the trial decision, and granted judgment for the unpaid account.