Faye E. McWatt

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions arising from a privacy breach at two hospitals.

Rogue hospital employees accessed the contact information of maternity patients and sold it to RESP salespeople.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the accessed information (names, addresses, phone numbers, and basic hospital visit details) was personal but not highly private, and that the intrusion would not be regarded by a reasonable person as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation, or anguish.

Although the motions judge erred in his class definition, the appeal was dismissed because the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion were not met.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 25, 2021.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court dated March 28, 2022.

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

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated August 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Petersen J. dated May 25, 2022.

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

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found the landlords served a notice of termination in bad faith but declined to award any remedies under s. 57(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision not to award damages for increased rent, moving expenses, or general damages, and its refusal to impose an administrative fine, were discretionary and based on factual findings that disclosed no error of law.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) appealed a Superior Court decision staying its application under section 87 of the Health Professions Procedural Code to compel a physician to produce patient records.

The physician had refused to produce records related to COVID-19 vaccine exemptions and had separately sought judicial review of the CPSO's investigation.

The Divisional Court held that although the appeal might be moot following the dismissal of the judicial review, it should be heard for reasons of judicial economy.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the stay, finding the applications judge erred in principle by misapprehending the narrow scope of a section 87 application and failing to consider the urgency and public interest in the investigation.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vella J. dated July 15, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a fresh evidence application and a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the application and the motion, awarding $5,000 in costs to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Carter J. dated August 10, 2022.

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 an order of the lower court.

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

The appellant appealed two decisions regarding her claims for statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The first appeal challenged a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying certain attendant care benefits and setting the interest accrual date, which the Divisional Court dismissed as raising questions of fact rather than law.

The second appeal challenged a Financial Services Commission of Ontario decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for housekeeping benefits due to a 2011 consent order settling the issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding no errors of law and upholding the lower tribunals' decisions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), which found insufficient evidence that police officers committed misconduct during an interaction that ended with the applicant's daughter falling to her death from a balcony.

The applicant alleged excessive force, neglect of duty, deceit, and discreditable conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's investigation and conclusions were reasonable, transparent, and justified based on the evidence.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision that ordered it to pay for a psychological assessment treatment plan because it failed to provide a timely denial notice under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 38(11)2 only requires an insurer to pay for goods and services that are actually incurred during the period before a proper notice is given.

The court found that requiring payment for non-incurred expenses would result in a consumer windfall contrary to the purpose of the legislation.

The reconsideration decision was set aside and the decision of first instance was reinstated.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a reconsideration decision that denied his claim for ongoing income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by admitting the insurer's expert reports without the required expert forms, misinterpreting the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), and denying procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the adjudicator properly exercised her discretion to admit the reports and weigh the evidence, correctly applied the SABS disability tests, and afforded the appellant procedural fairness.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that, although the employer had the authority to change the pension plan under the collective agreement, it was estopped from freezing the Defined Benefits component until the expiry of the agreement.

The arbitrator found the employer made a clear representation in 1999 that employees choosing the Defined Benefits plan would remain in it until retirement, and the union detrimentally relied on this by losing the opportunity to negotiate protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's application of the doctrine of estoppel and his factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Steele J. The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether it is legally possible for some limited partners to bring a common law derivative action on behalf of a limited partnership against a general partner.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties, Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Auto Canada Corp., sought leave to appeal the order of Barnes J. dated June 10, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded against each moving party, payable to the respondent within 30 days.

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to revoke the respondents' funeral director and establishment operator licences.

The respondent had previously pleaded guilty to stealing approximately $86,000 from a local charity to pay business debts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment that the respondent's conduct was out of character, that he had insight into his misconduct, and that public protection did not require revocation.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated August 9, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding party within 30 days.