Dena N. Varah

The respondents applied to the City of Toronto for demolition permits.

After 19 months without a decision, they appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The City argued the appeal was out of time under section 3 of the City of Toronto Act, 1985.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, concluding that the time limits conflicted with section 33(4) of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the City's appeal, finding no conflict between the statutes but holding that the time limit in section 3 was directory rather than mandatory, and that the appeal was filed in time.

The respondents were entirely successful in the appeals and settled their costs with the appellant Molson Sport & Entertainment Inc. They sought costs from the appellant Jonathan Vrozos, who took no position.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents payable by Vrozos in the amount of $49,768.00.

The appellants, Molson and Vrozos, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for intentional interference with economic relations, breach of contract, and fraud arising from the sale of exclusive water rights at a large concert.

Molson had sold exclusive water rights to Vrozos, who then sold them to the respondents.

Molson subsequently allowed other vendors to sell water and forced the respondents to supply free water to meet health requirements.

Vrozos also made unauthorized side deals and misappropriated funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability and the award of punitive damages against Vrozos, correcting only the method of calculating damages against Molson and dismissing Vrozos's crossclaim against Molson for a management fee.

The appellant plastic surgeon appealed a trial judgment finding her liable for medical negligence based on a lack of informed consent.

The respondent underwent breast reconstruction surgery and suffered severe delayed wound healing.

The trial judge found that while the appellant met the standard of care in performing the surgery, she failed to adequately disclose the likelihood and consequences of delayed wound healing given the respondent's specific risk factors (obesity, smoking, and previous abdominal scarring).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the trial judge correctly applied the law of informed consent and the modified objective test for causation, finding that a reasonable person in the respondent's circumstances would not have proceeded with the surgery had adequate disclosure been made.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal and the value of his shares under a shareholders' agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent's shares had not been validly purchased upon his termination and that he was entitled to participate in the proceeds of the company's subsequent sale.

The court also upheld the trial judge's refusal to reduce wrongful dismissal damages for failure to mitigate.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the award for dividends on Class B preferred shares because the respondent's option agreement explicitly precluded dividend rights until the option was exercised.

The appellant physicians, who performed cosmetic surgery without formal surgical residency, were investigated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for potential professional misconduct or incompetence.

The College sought to have investigators observe their surgical practices, which the appellants refused, arguing the governing legislation did not authorize compelled observation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the power to 'inquire into and examine the practice' under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code encompasses the direct observation of a member's practice, particularly to protect the public interest.

The moving parties, three doctors practising cosmetic surgery, sought a stay pending appeal of a Divisional Court decision that permitted the College of Physicians and Surgeons to compel observation of their surgeries as part of a professional misconduct investigation.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding that the appeal raised a serious issue, the doctors would suffer irreparable harm from the intrusive nature of the observations, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the lack of urgency and the College's prior acquiescence.

The applicants, physicians under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, brought applications for judicial review challenging the scope of investigators' powers under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

They argued that investigators could not compel them to submit to interviews or allow observation of their surgical practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that the statutory power to 'inquire into and examine the practice' includes the power to observe surgeries, and the incorporation of the Public Inquiries Act grants investigators the power to compel interviews.

The court also dismissed as premature the challenge to the Registrar's decision that there were reasonable and probable grounds to initiate the investigations.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their claim to wind up two family-owned companies under s. 207 of the OBCA.

The appellants argued that irreconcilable differences and a mutual loss of confidence required the court to intervene.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that the appellant had no reasonable expectation that the business would be wound up or that he would continue to exercise de facto control.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its appeal from a Master's decision.

The Master had denied the defendant's request to substitute its Manager of Environmental Health and Safety for its in-house counsel as the corporate representative for examinations for discovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision, and affirming that there is no blanket exclusion of lawyers from discovery simply because of solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding that the parties had not reached a binding agreement regarding the purchase and development of a commercial property.

The trial judge concluded that the parties only had an unenforceable agreement to agree, as they had agreed on the ownership ratio but not on other essential matters, which were to be dealt with in an unexecuted shareholders agreement.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision fixing the membership of three charitable corporations and ordering a meeting to elect new directors.

The Court of Appeal found that no proper procedure was taken to change the members in accordance with the Corporations Act, and the proper directors and members remained the original applicants for the letters patent.

The appeal was allowed, and the court ordered meetings of the original members to be held within 30 days.

The trustee in bankruptcy appealed an order restricting it from providing the bankrupt estate's inspectors and creditors with access to the bankrupt's documents.

The restriction was initially imposed due to concerns that an inspector, representing a competitor creditor, would use the information for collateral purposes.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that inspectors require access to documents to fulfill their statutory supervisory duties.

The court ruled that the proper remedy for concerns about misuse of information is to restrain the collateral use of the documents or remove the inspector, rather than denying access entirely.

The Minister of Health and Genpharm appealed a decision granting judicial review that quashed the extension of a cut-off date for generic drug submissions to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The application judge had found the process procedurally unfair and ordered a new cut-off date, resulting in all five competing generic drug companies having their products listed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals as moot, finding that the new Formulary had already been published, the legal landscape had changed, and Genpharm's proposed future action for damages did not justify hearing the appeal on the merits.