E.R. Kruzick

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario appealed a motion judge's refusal to grant a sealing order for Minutes of Settlement entered into with the respondents in 2001.

The appellant sought to rely on the settlement in its defence of new actions brought by the respondents while preserving its confidentiality.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to recognize settlement privilege as an important interest under the Sierra Club test.

The Court held that the appellant had not waived privilege and that the salutary effects of protecting settlement privilege outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The applicant sought judicial review of several decisions relating to his 2003 dismissal from the Ministry of Environment, including decisions by the OLRB, the Grievance Settlement Board, and a Superior Court judge who dismissed his civil action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Superior Court's final order, which belongs in the Court of Appeal.

The Court also held that setting aside a private settlement agreement is not the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review, and that the OLRB decisions were both out of time for review and reasonable.

The application was deemed an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a Certificate of Assessment and declare Minutes of Settlement void.

He argued that he did not understand the terms of the agreement and lacked independent legal advice.

The Divisional Court heard the matter de novo based on the motion record.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide his own affidavit evidence to support his claim of non est factum, and that independent legal advice is not a strict legal requirement for an agreement to be enforceable.

The appellant appealed an order varying an assessment officer's report regarding legal fees.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the assessment officer provided only conclusory reasons for reducing the respondent's hourly rates and had no evidentiary basis for disallowing the cost of two lawyers appearing in court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

The appellant nurse appealed a penalty order from the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

She argued the Panel was functus officio when it issued its reasons after the order, that it lacked jurisdiction to order her participation in a quality assurance program, and that the penalty was disproportionately harsh.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel had a statutory duty to issue written reasons, possessed broad remedial discretion under the Health Professions Procedural Code, and imposed a reasonable penalty aimed at protecting the public interest.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner denying them permission to build a home on their land due to flood control concerns raised by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by presuming a general legislative prohibition on development in floodplains and by elevating safety to a stand-alone head of jurisdiction.

The Court held that the proposed development would have no impact on flood control and directed the approval of the development without conditions.

The applicant, a paralegal, sought judicial review of a Law Society appeal panel decision that set aside findings of professional misconduct against him but directed a new hearing rather than staying the proceedings.

The applicant argued the appeal panel breached procedural fairness and provided insufficient reasons for refusing the stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the appeal panel reasonably concluded that the stay request should be addressed by a new hearing panel with the benefit of a full evidentiary record.

The plaintiffs appealed an order staying their action for failure to pay previous costs awards.

Through this appeal, the self-represented plaintiff sought to set aside a $6,450 costs award made by another judge who had dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a document production order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the previous costs order could not be collaterally attacked through an appeal of the stay order, and that the costs were appropriately awarded to the successful party on the leave motion.

The applicant, a teacher whose employment was terminated after unsatisfactory performance evaluations, sought judicial review of several decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The HRTO had dismissed his numerous complaints against his former employer, his union, various legal counsel, and several administrative bodies, finding no evidence of discrimination based on race or colour.

The HRTO also declared him a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the HRTO's decisions, noting that the applicant failed to establish any link between his dismissal or the subsequent administrative decisions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The husband's father brought an action to enforce an $800,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home, which was consolidated with the family law proceedings.

The court found the mortgage was a sham designed to protect the husband's equity and dismissed the father's claim against the wife.

In the family law action, the court determined the date of separation, valued the husband's corporate interests, and found the husband had manipulated his business affairs to defeat the wife's claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $300,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and corporate benefits, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $489,354, retroactive support of $196,462, and ongoing spousal support of $7,000 per month (or a lump sum of $585,000).

The appellant law firm appealed an order of a Master dismissing its action against a former lawyer and his new firm for outstanding disbursements and legal fees.

The action was dismissed at a status hearing due to a two-year and four-month delay in advancing the litigation.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's conclusion that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate a lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Master's order granting summary judgment to the respondent for unpaid invoices.

The appellant argued the Master improperly weighed evidence and utilized powers reserved for a judge under Rule 20.04(2.1).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master did not weigh evidence because the appellant failed to provide any evidence in support of its defences and had admitted a substantial portion of the debt.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario removing his counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from the counsel's former representation of a co-respondent.

The College brought a motion to quash the application as premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the deprivation of counsel of choice raised real issues of fairness and natural justice.

On the merits, the Court allowed the application for judicial review and set aside the College's order, concluding there was no evidence of a realistic risk of a conflict of interest or misuse of confidential information.

The applicant appealed a family law arbitration award that ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing spousal support, child support, and an equalization payment.

The applicant argued the arbitrator made palpable and overriding errors in imputing income, drawing adverse inferences regarding his assets, and failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's reasons were adequate, the findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and there was no error in principle or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants purchased a campsite property and subsequently sought to significantly increase the rent for several cabin owners who leased land on the site.

When the cabin owners challenged the increase at the Landlord and Tenant Board, the applicants brought an application to the Superior Court seeking to declare the leases null and void and to evict the respondents, arguing the leases violated the Planning Act and the Statute of Frauds.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cabins were residential units within a land lease community under the Residential Tenancies Act, and therefore the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters regarding the termination of the tenancies.

The parties consented to set aside a previous order and agreed that the costs of the set-aside order would be determined by written submissions.

The respondent on appeal had made an offer to settle which the appellant accepted just days before responding materials were due, causing the respondent to incur unnecessary preparation costs.

The court found that the appellant's delay in accepting the offer warranted a costs award in favour of the respondent, fixing costs at $5,000.

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it had unjustly dismissed a long-term employee and awarded significant damages, including past and future economic loss, $50,000 for mental distress, and $50,000 in punitive damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's decision to award economic loss and mental distress damages in lieu of reinstatement, finding it reasonable given the employer's bad faith in the manner of dismissal.

However, the Court set aside the quantum of mental distress damages because it improperly included unsupported damages for physical pain and suffering.

The Court also set aside the punitive damages award due to a denial of natural justice and the arbitrator's failure to identify an independent actionable wrong or address proportionality.

The issues of quantum for mental distress and punitive damages were remitted to the arbitrator.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion regarding property damage allegedly caused by the negligent construction of neighbouring homes.

They argued the motions judge failed to apply the new, more flexible Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court agreed the reasons were inadequate but upheld the dismissal, finding significant conflicting evidence regarding personal liability, independent contractor liability, and damages that required a trial.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent, brought by the respondent mortgagee in possession.

The tenant argued the Board erred in its factual findings regarding notice and rent payment, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the premises were exempt under s. 5(j) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's factual findings and noting that the jurisdictional argument was not raised before the Board.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB) to the Divisional Court.

The ARB had classified a condominium unit used as a sign shop by the respondent as commercial rather than industrial under O. Reg. 282/98.

The court found that the ARB's decision was based on findings of fact regarding the specific property and did not raise a question of law of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Divisional Court.

The court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.