Faye E. McWatt

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering him to undergo a second specified continuous education or remediation program (SCERP) for ongoing medical record-keeping deficiencies.

The applicant argued the decision was an abuse of process and unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process despite a minor procedural fairness breach, and held that the ICRC's decision to escalate remediation was a reasonable and proportionate response to the applicant's persistent record-keeping issues.

The applicant abandoned their application for judicial review.

The respondent sought costs of $35,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court found the requested amounts to be far in excess of what is normally awarded in such cases and fixed costs at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to extreme delay.

The applicant had waited 32 months after the union withdrew his grievances before filing the complaint, having pursued parallel proceedings at the Human Rights Tribunal and Superior Court in the interim.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the delay was excessive, the explanation insufficient, and the prejudice to the union significant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Vella dated July 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion to be determined at the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff requested an extension of time to submit responding materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for an extension and dismissed the defendants' motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the original motion for security for costs was dismissed because no statement of defence had been filed, leaving the defendants free to renew their motion once a statement of defence is served and filed.

The court dismissed a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Lemon dated June 22, 2021.

As no costs submissions were received from the parties, no costs were awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,249.78.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that barred their civil action against the respondents for constructive dismissal and assault.

The Tribunal had found that the underlying incident was a workplace accident, not an intentional assault, and that the civil claims were inextricably linked to the workplace injury, thus barred by section 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable, the barring of the constructive dismissal claim was justified as a disguised tort claim, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in favour of the responding parties in the amount of $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $3,148.63.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Robert Smith dated July 7, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the responding party was awarded costs fixed at $2,000.

The appellants (owners) appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent (contractor) damages and a construction lien for unpaid work and lost profits under a fixed-price residential construction contract.

The owners had terminated the contract mid-construction, alleging fundamental breach due to unilateral design changes and delays.

The trial judge found the owners were responsible for design flaws, the contractor's changes were necessary and approved, and there was no fundamental breach justifying termination.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error in the assessment of fundamental breach, the valuation of the work completed, or the award for lost profits.

The court also rejected the owners' argument that the trial judge's negative credibility findings against them demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed a summary trial decision that allowed the respondent repair shop to recover $30,358.06 for repairs to a vehicle from funds paid into court.

The trial judge had found that although the respondent's non-possessory lien was invalid and unenforceable under the Repair and Storage Liens Act due to a lack of signed acknowledgment, the appellant's payment of the disputed funds into court under s. 24 converted the invalid lien into a valid charge on the funds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 24(13) cannot be used to turn an invalid, improperly registered lien into a valid one.

The respondent's claim was dismissed and the funds were ordered to be paid out to the appellant.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a mortgage commitment's interest rate provision breached section 8 of the Interest Act.

The provision increased the interest rate from 8.25% to 18% in the final month of the term unless the mortgage was renewed or discharged.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the interest rate increase was triggered by the passage of time rather than default, and therefore did not violate the Interest Act.

The appellant was awarded judgment reflecting the 18% interest rate for the final month and thereafter, along with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority granting a permit to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to build a retaining wall on Sauble Beach.

The applicant also challenged the Town's decision to proceed without obtaining a permit under the Endangered Species Act or conducting an environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court found the Authority's decision to issue the permit was unreasonable because it failed to properly apply the test under O. Reg. 151/06 and failed to consider the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement regarding dynamic beach hazards.

The permit was quashed and remitted to the Authority.

The challenges to the Town's decisions regarding the Endangered Species Act and Environmental Assessment Act were dismissed as premature and lacking the proper respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the calculation of interest on a mortgage.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, ordering judgment in an amount that accounts for interest at 8.25% for the first six months of the mortgage term and 18.00% for the seventh month and thereafter.

Written reasons were to follow.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge dated March 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding receiver in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party, Watts Water Technologies Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sanderson J. dated March 16, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Kiteley J. dated December 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the corporate respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000, while no costs were awarded to the individual respondent as no costs outline was filed.