Ellen B. Murray

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decisions not to refer his racial discrimination complaint against his employer to the Human Rights Tribunal, and to uphold that decision upon reconsideration.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness during the investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission met the requirements of procedural fairness and that its decisions were not patently unreasonable.

The complainant alleged that a funeral home lost his late wife's diamond earrings.

The Complaints Committee of the Board of Funeral Services declined to refer the matter to discipline and stated it lacked jurisdiction to order compensation.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the funeral home to pay $4,800 in compensation.

The Registrar appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that neither the Complaints Committee nor the Tribunal had statutory authority under the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act to award monetary compensation to a complainant.

The Law Society appealed a decision of its Appeal Panel, which had set aside a Hearing Panel's finding that the respondent lawyer committed professional misconduct through sexual harassment.

The Appeal Panel had ordered a new hearing, finding the Hearing Panel erred by failing to strictly apply the credibility assessment test from R. v. W. (D.).

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that strict application of W. (D.) is not required in administrative disciplinary proceedings provided the correct civil standard of proof is applied.

The court restored the finding of professional misconduct but upheld the Appeal Panel's conclusion that the penalty of disbarment was unreasonable, substituting a 12-month suspension.

The respondent leased a BMW and installed extensive aftermarket modifications.

The airbags deployed without a collision, and BMW refused warranty coverage, citing the modifications.

The trial judge found BMW liable for breach of warranty, concluding the exclusion clause was ambiguous.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.

The majority held that the trial judge erred in failing to require the respondent to prove the defect was not caused by the modifications, and found the exclusion clause unambiguously excluded coverage for modifications that may result in damage to original components.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of a decision refusing to quash a notice of hearing regarding a misconduct complaint.

The applicant argued that because the chief of police's delegate initially found the complaint unsubstantiated, he was functus officio and could not subsequently issue a notice of hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the initial decision was an investigative, administrative screening function, not a final adjudicative decision, and therefore the doctrine of functus officio did not apply.