Donald Ross Cameron

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers ordering the production of documents.

The documents, which contained confidential legal advice, had been inadvertently disclosed to the College by a secretary employed by the board.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the secretary lacked authority to waive solicitor-client privilege and that the privilege should be upheld.

The court ordered the return of the documents and the reconstitution of the prosecutorial function with a different prosecutor.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision dismissing its claims for compensation for injurious affection, business loss, and disturbance damages following the expropriation of lands for a highway overpass.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for findings of fact by the OMB is palpable and overriding error, and correctness for questions of law.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the OMB's conclusion that the appellant's loss of profits was not attributable to the expropriation, but rather to other factors including the appellant's own strategic marketing decisions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, suffering from liver cancer, was denied a liver transplant in Ontario as he did not meet the medical criteria.

He obtained a living-related liver transplant in England for $450,000 and sought reimbursement from OHIP.

OHIP denied the claim because the treatment was not 'generally accepted in Ontario as appropriate for a person in the same medical circumstances' under s. 28.4(2) of Regulation 552.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board upheld the denial.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding that the Regulation did not violate s. 7 of the Charter because the state's refusal to fund out-of-country treatment did not constitute a deprivation of life or security of the person.

The applicant, a Convention refugee from Iran, sought a Certificate of Qualification to teach in Ontario.

She was unable to provide original documentation of her qualifications because the Iranian government, her persecutor, held the records.

The Ontario College of Teachers refused her application for failing to provide original documents.

The applicant sought a re-evaluation and accommodation from the Registration Appeals Committee, which denied her request.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Committee's requirement for original documents was prima facie discriminatory based on place of origin.

The Court found that the Committee failed to properly apply the Human Rights Code, failed to accommodate the applicant, and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision.

The decision was rescinded and remitted for rehearing.

The appellant bailiff appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for selling the respondent's tools and materials without notice under the Repair and Storage Liens Act after locking the respondent out of commercial premises for rent arrears.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking damages based on full replacement cost rather than actual value.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings on liability, the measure of damages, or the determination that the claim was not statute-barred.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her solicitor negligence action as statute-barred.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action where the limitation period has clearly expired.

The court found the limitation period began to run when the solicitor ceased acting for the appellant and the damage was suffered, making the action out of time.

The court also found no evidence that the respondent waived the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering the return of a real estate deposit with interest to the respondent purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the deal was dead after the purchaser failed to give notice under a condition inserted for his sole benefit.

The court declined to accept a new affidavit as fresh evidence and awarded costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of the school board's decision to exclude a student from a regular class and require an assessment prior to determining placement.

The board offered a special education placement pending the assessment, which the litigation guardian refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's position was not unreasonable, and declined to order the deletion of the student's records.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Energy Board granting leave to construct a natural gas pipeline to the proposed Greenfield Energy Centre.

The appellants argued the Board erred by limiting its public interest consideration to the pipeline itself, rather than considering the environmental and socio-economic effects of the generating station and the resulting closure of a coal-fired plant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly limited its jurisdiction to the specific project before it and correctly deferred to the Ministry of the Environment on the assessment of the plant.

The applicant police officer, facing disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act, sought judicial review of a designated hearing officer's refusal to recuse himself for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant also sought to prohibit the Chief of Police from appointing a former police officer to preside over the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislative scheme allows for the appointment of retired police officers and that there was no evidence of institutional or personal bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant had been suspended twice by his employer following work refusals.

The Board found the discipline was imposed for threats and engaging in an illegal work stoppage, not for raising safety concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Board's factual determinations.

Two applications for judicial review were brought regarding preliminary awards by a labour arbitrator.

Solidwear sought to review the arbitrator's decision denying it party standing as a potential related employer.

Valleycroft, a bankrupt employer, sought to review the arbitrator's decision refusing to allow it to argue that the union's grievance was untimely.

The Divisional Court dismissed a preliminary motion to quash Solidwear's application for delay.

The Court dismissed Solidwear's application, finding the arbitrator's decision on standing was not patently unreasonable.

However, the Court granted Valleycroft's application, holding that the arbitrator's refusal to hear arguments on the timeliness of the grievance was a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted board of arbitration.

The appellant, a dental surgeon, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct, revoking his licence, and ordering him to pay $250,000 in costs.

He argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, a denial of natural justice due to refused adjournments, and that the penalty and costs were excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the findings of misconduct and the licence revocation, finding no apprehension of bias or denial of natural justice, and agreeing that the appellant was ungovernable.

However, the court found the costs award unduly high and reduced it to $200,000.

The plaintiff, a former franchisee, sued the franchisor for failing to renew its lease.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), which was granted by the motions judge.

The plaintiff appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that the defendants had unreasonably delayed in bringing the motion and that the order would stifle a valid claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the defendants had good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets years before bringing the motion, and that the motions judge failed to appreciate the evidence of delay.

The order for security for costs was set aside.

The appellants (defendants) were successful in their appeal, resulting in the plaintiffs' statement of claim being struck out as an abuse of process and the action dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs, and the court received written submissions.

The appellants sought $42,302.66 on a partial indemnity scale, while the respondents argued for a reduced amount of $12,000 to $14,000.

The Divisional Court found no reason to reduce the amounts claimed, noting the action involved serious allegations of fraud, conspiracy, dishonesty, and malice.

Costs were fixed at $42,302.66, payable by the respondents to the appellants.

The appellants appealed from an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs had previously been found to have breached their fiduciary duty in a prior action and subsequently commenced this action alleging fraud and conspiracy against their former adversaries and their lawyers.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the amended statement of claim was an unauthorized abuse of process, the plaintiff lacked capacity to represent the estate, and the action was a collateral attack on the prior judgment barred by res judicata.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action was dismissed.

The applicant father in a custody and support proceeding moved for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent mother's counterclaim for an interest in property.

The motions judge adjourned the summary judgment motion pending the applicant's delivery of a financial statement and transcripts.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the adjournment to the Divisional Court.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the adjournment and noting a conflicting decision regarding the adjournment of summary judgment motions for unrelated document production.

The successful applicant sought costs of $98,000 on a substantial indemnity basis following a judicial review of a decision revoking his licence.

The court noted the substantial consequence of the matter and the time required, but found the claimed amount exceeded what was reasonably recoverable and what the respondent might have anticipated.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $60,000.

Following a successful appeal granting summary judgment on liability and directing an assessment of damages, the appellant sought costs on a full indemnity basis pursuant to a lease provision.

The respondents argued that costs should be reserved to the assessment judge, as the true magnitude of the appellant's victory would only be known once damages were assessed.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondents and ordered that the costs of the appeal and the motion for leave be in the discretion of the judge hearing the assessment of damages.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her request to reconsider a previous decision that denied her benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Tribunal had found a lack of temporal connection between her condition and her work.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonability and found that the Tribunal's findings of fact and refusal to reconsider were supported by medical evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.