Faye E. McWatt

The applicant, a crypto asset trading platform, sought judicial review of an investigation order and summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant argued the investigation was precluded by a prior undertaking and constituted an abuse of process, and that the summons violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the undertaking contained an express reservation of rights that permitted the investigation.

The court declined to decide the Charter issue, holding it should first be raised before the Commission.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a successor employer bound by a collective agreement after taking over a hospital shuttle bus contract.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably expanded the definition of 'building service provider' and 'servicing the premises' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and consistent with its prior jurisprudence.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fitzpatrick J. dated March 29, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding party to pay costs of $3,500 to the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Varpio J. dated April 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and awarded the moving party $2,000 in costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Valente J. dated April 19, 2023.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no submissions on costs were made, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an associate justice's costs orders and an order dismissing a motion to increase the pre-judgment interest rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the costs orders and noted that leave to appeal the pre-judgment interest order was not required.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a case conference order dated November 21, 2021.

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

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the respondents to pay the moving party agreed costs of $5,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a WSIAT decision denying his claim for chronic or traumatic mental stress benefits.

The WSIAT had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily caused by his job reclassification and resulting wage impact, which are employer decisions excluded from compensation under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIAT's decision reasonable and supported by the medical evidence.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by failing to consider financial documents contained in his voluminous document brief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law, as the appellant had failed to enter the documents into evidence despite multiple directions and opportunities from the Adjudicator to do so.

The court also upheld the denial of an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for termination and compensation for water damage to the rental unit's flooring.

The Board had found that while the tenant's mopping caused the damage, it was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore not negligent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlords' arguments challenged findings of fact and mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the dismissal of a complaint against a physician.

The physician had accessed the deceased patient's hospital records multiple times after being sued for medical malpractice, without the patient's consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the HPARB and the investigating committee unreasonably interpreted the Personal Health Information and Protection Act (PHIPA).

The court held that the physician acted as an agent of the hospital, not a health information custodian, and therefore could not unilaterally access the records outside the civil litigation discovery process.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed his requests to reactivate deferred human rights applications and denied reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to reactivate his applications within the 60-day time limit and did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, as they were based on the applicant's failure to comply with procedural rules and a lack of medical evidence supporting his claim of disability-related delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant lawyer was the subject of a Law Society discipline proceeding that was ultimately dismissed after 56 days of hearing.

He sought costs against the Law Society, which were denied by the Hearing Division and the Appeal Division.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court found that the Law Society's investigation was one-sided and procedurally unfair, and its positions on disclosure were unreasonable.

While the court upheld the finding that the proceeding was warranted at the outset, it set aside the decisions denying costs and remitted the matter to a new panel to determine whether the appellant is entitled to costs wasted by the Law Society's undue delay, negligence, or other default.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions, the parties consensually resolved the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court ordered costs payable by the plaintiffs/appellants to the various defendants/respondents in the total amount of $92,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.