Ellies R.S.J.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a temporary order placing his partner's daughter into the care of the children's aid society.

A subsequent temporary order replaced the appealed order, placing the child with her mother under supervision.

The Divisional Court found the appeal legally moot because the controversy over the child's placement had been removed by the subsequent order.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal and dismissed it.

The applicant nurses' union sought judicial review of two directives issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health regarding COVID-19 infection control and the use of N95 respirators.

The applicants argued the directives failed to account for aerosol and asymptomatic transmission and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the directives were reasonable as they expressly incorporated the precautionary principle and permitted nurses to access N95 respirators based on their professional judgment.

The appellants, minority shareholders in a family holding company controlled by their father, appealed a decision dismissing their claim for breach of fiduciary duty and ordering them to sell their shares as a remedy for oppression.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in fact and law by failing to recognize the father's self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty when he purchased shares through his own company and later sold them to the family holding company for a substantial profit.

The court also found the forced sale of the appellants' shares was manifestly unjust and failed to consider their reasonable expectations.

The court ordered the father and his company to disgorge the profits to the holding company, removed the father as a director of the appellants' holding company, and awarded costs to the appellants.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment, and ordering them to pay $200,000 to the respondent.

The applicants argued the Vice-Chair's approach to credibility was unreasonable and procedurally unfair, particularly regarding the respondent's memory issues and the use of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Vice-Chair's credibility assessments were reasonable, did not improperly rely on oath-helping, and did not subject the applicant's evidence to unequal scrutiny.