Denise Bellamy

The appellants, who were self-represented at the time, appealed a master's order striking out their statement of defence for failing to comply with production orders.

On appeal, the Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding it provided context to the appellants' actions and showed they were not deliberately flouting court orders.

The court allowed the appeal, holding that the master denied the appellants procedural fairness by failing to explain the severe consequences of the motion, not inviting submissions on the specific issue of striking the defence, and ignoring a less drastic alternative proposed by the respondent's counsel.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from a 'no order' issued by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal had issued the 'no order' because the underlying issue of an overpayment had been resolved.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the appeal, finding that without a Tribunal decision, there was no statutory basis for an appeal.

The appellant's conspiracy allegations were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property, arguing that the trial judge's conduct resulted in an unfair trial.

The respondent was self-represented at trial.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge improperly assumed the role of advocate for the respondent, severely restricted the appellant's cross-examination and submissions, and improperly relied on confidential settlement and case conference briefs.

The court concluded that the trial judge's interventions and failure to provide adequate reasons breached the principles of fairness.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of mediation and settlement materials.

The materials had been prepared for the mediation of ongoing litigation between the applicant and the respondent.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the records were exempt from disclosure under both the common-law settlement privilege and section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court emphasized that the public interest in encouraging settlement trumps the public interest in transparency of government action in these circumstances.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his appointment as a bailiff for allegedly participating in unlawful entries.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the first incident was unreasonable because the evidence established the client had a right to occupy the premises.

The Court further held it was administratively unfair to rely on a second, much older incident as an independent basis for revocation due to delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiff claimed $45,391.40 inclusive of GST and disbursements, while the defendants argued $25,000 was fair and reasonable.

The court noted that much of the work had already been prepared for the original injunction motion.

Applying Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $28,627.40, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision finding that s. 5(2) of the ODSPA, which denies benefits to individuals whose sole impairment is addiction, violated the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the respondents, who were disabled by alcoholism, were discriminated against.

The Court confirmed that the Tribunal was not required to apply the third, dignity-focused step of the Law test to establish discrimination under the Code.

The applicant sought a stay of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing regarding minor variances granted to her neighbour, pending the determination of her application for judicial review.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm because the OMB hearing is a hearing de novo where the onus remains on the respondent.

The balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the OMB hearing.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to vary the terms of an injunction.

The moving party argued the decision conflicted with other cases and there was good reason to doubt its correctness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict in principle, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant psychologist provided treatment to the respondent, an injured worker, beyond the sessions approved by the WSIB.

The appellant provided the services based on assurances from the respondent's paralegal that the WSIB would pay.

When the WSIB did not pay, the appellant sued the respondent in Small Claims Court for her unpaid account.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no contract and no unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the respondent had made it clear he could not pay, and that the appellant had assumed the risk of non-payment by the WSIB.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking his appointment as an assistant bailiff for the City of Toronto.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's finding that the 2004 legislation created a new class of assistant bailiff with retrospective effect.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, a taxi driver who was the victim of a serious knife attack, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board had awarded him $20,000 for pain and suffering, despite his request for $90,000 to $150,000, because the governing legislation restricts lump sum awards to a maximum of $25,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and no failure by the Board to exercise its discretion appropriately.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that denied its grievance regarding the interpretation of a contracting out provision in a collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to answer all questions or provide sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, consistent with his findings of fact, and sufficiently complete to allow for proper analysis.

The appellant, a taxi driver who was the victim of a serious knife attack, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $20,000 for pain and suffering.

He had sought between $90,000 and $150,000, but the governing statute restricts the Board to a maximum lump sum award of $25,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and that the Board exercised its discretion appropriately.

Following a successful appeal by the defendants regarding a representation order, the parties sought a determination on the costs of the original motions before the motion judge, which had been reserved.

The motion judge had originally awarded $9,000 globally to the plaintiff for success on three motions.

The Divisional Court suggested an arbitrary reduction of the costs award to $6,000 to reflect the defendants' success on appeal regarding one of the motions, and referred the matter back to the motion judge if the parties could not agree.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Region's decision to consent to the sale of a non-profit housing co-operative to the Region's social housing arm.

The Co-op was in receivership due to financial difficulties and need for capital repairs.

The Region consented to the sale without notifying the Co-op's board or members.

The Divisional Court held that the Region's decision was judicially reviewable and that the Region breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

However, given the urgent need for repairs, the court declined to quash the consent and deferred the matter to the Commercial List where the sale motion was pending.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents $1,859,999 for injurious affection to their remaining lands following an expropriation.

The appellants argued that a previously granted parkland dedication credit settled the claim, should be set off against the damages, or that the Board erred in calculating the lost development units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court held that the parkland credit related to the expropriated land, while the injurious affection claim related to the loss of opportunity to build townhouses on the remaining land, meaning there was no double recovery.

The appellant brought a motion for an immediate stay of the continuation of disciplinary proceedings commenced against her by the Law Society of Upper Canada, pending the hearing of her appeal and judicial review.

She alleged prosecutorial misconduct and a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Hearing Panel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to establish that the balance of convenience was in her favour or that she would suffer irreparable harm if the hearing progressed to its conclusion.

The court also declined to remit the matter to a previous judge for reconsideration.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Small Claims Court dismissing their statement of claim on a motion by the respondent.

The motions judge provided no written or oral reasons for the dismissal, simply endorsing the record with 'dismissed'.

The Divisional Court held that litigants are entitled to know the reasons for a decision, and the complete absence of reasons made appellate review impossible.

The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted to the Small Claims Court for a new hearing before a different judge.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his solicitor's negligence claim against his former lawyer, who had represented him in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The trial judge had found no negligence and no causal connection to the appellant's loss, as the appellant had discharged subsequent counsel and proceeded to trial self-represented.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of palpable and overriding error, found ample grounds for the trial judge's conclusions, and dismissed the appeal.