Faye E. McWatt

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union to represent a bargaining unit of operating engineers.

The employer challenged the Board's decision to exclude four working forepersons from the bargaining unit.

The Board had applied the 'majority-of-time' test because the forepersons supervised mixed crews, concluding the employer failed to prove they spent the majority of their time performing or supervising bargaining unit work on the application filing date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's choice and application of the test were reasonable and consistent with its specialized expertise in construction industry labour relations.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for substantial interference related to bed bugs in their rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board breached procedural fairness and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board afforded sufficient procedural fairness and properly controlled its own process.

Furthermore, the Court held that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law, making reasonableness review inapplicable, and found no error in the Board's application of the law regarding the landlord's maintenance obligations.

The appellant, a former real estate broker whose license was revoked, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his reapplication for registration.

He argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by denying his requests for a summons, an adjournment, and allegedly preventing him from recording the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in denying the irrelevant summons and the last-minute adjournment.

The court noted the appellant was explicitly granted permission to record the hearing but failed to retain a reporter, and his deliberate choice to leave the hearing meant he failed to meet his evidentiary onus.

The applicant sought a stay of two decisions by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal that revoked his vehicle-for-hire driver's licence, pending his application for judicial review.

The Tribunal had revoked the licence after finding the applicant repeatedly harassed and acted uncivilly toward by-law enforcement officers, even after completing anger management counselling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public and allowing by-law officers to fulfill their duties without harassment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board not to proceed with a review of his complaint against a physician.

The complaint related to the physician's application to the Consent and Capacity Board regarding the applicant's roommate.

The Board dismissed the request for review as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the applicant appeared to be using the process to pressure the physician for financial compensation.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $4,160.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision and costs endorsement of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 for the leave to appeal the costs award and $5,000 for the leave to appeal the judgment were awarded to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by Agarwal J. on May 1, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no parties filed submissions on costs, no costs were ordered.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge was correct in concluding that the statement of claim in the fraudulent conveyance action was not before her at the hearing.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties for a transcript.

The appellants appealed a decision awarding damages against them personally for oppressive conduct.

They argued the respondent lacked standing, the partnership agreement barred the application, and the application judge lacked authority to award damages against individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the first two issues were improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and relying on Supreme Court precedent to affirm that personal liability can be imposed on directors for oppressive conduct.

The appellants sought to file affidavits on appeal that were not before the application judge.

The application judge had previously given no weight to one appellant's late-filed evidence and proceeded without evidence from the other appellant, who failed to file materials despite a court order.

The Divisional Court refused to admit the fresh evidence, noting that the appellants did not appeal the application judge's evidentiary rulings, did not bring a formal motion to admit fresh evidence, and failed to satisfy the Palmer test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal, specifically the due diligence requirement.

The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while there was no breach of procedural fairness, the Adjudicator's findings regarding the appellant's whole person impairment under Criterion 6 of the AMA Guides were unreasonable.

Specifically, the Adjudicator unreasonably dismissed evidence of double vision, peripheral neuropathy, and medication side effects.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Derstine J. dated April 9, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay the responding party $5,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Penny J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,700 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the production of documents and removal of counsel.

The Divisional Court granted leave in part, noting conflicting jurisprudence on whether the intent to commit civil fraud vitiates solicitor-client privilege, and similar issues regarding documents photographed in breach of privacy.

Leave to appeal the refusal to remove the wife's lawyer as counsel of record was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Ministry determination that it owed refunds to three students because an instructor lacked the requisite qualifications under the Private Career Colleges Act.

The applicant argued the Ministry failed to consider evidence establishing the instructor's qualifications during an internal review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence was submitted after the internal review decision had already been made, and the Ministry's refusal to reconsider the matter a second time was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) order requiring the disclosure of a joint venture agreement and payment records to a requester under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The applicant argued the records were exempt under s. 17(1) as trade secrets and that the IPC breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's process was fair and its conclusion that the agreement was mutually negotiated rather than 'supplied in confidence' was reasonable.

The court also declined to consider a new argument under s. 17(2) that was not raised before the adjudicator.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated July 4, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As both parties were self-represented and no costs submissions were filed, no costs were awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no submissions regarding costs, the court made no order as to costs.