Faye E. McWatt

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to one responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,000.

No costs were awarded to the other responding parties as no factum was filed.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify her class proceeding for breach of fiduciary duty against her investment advisors.

The appellant argued that the advisors' professional rules and codes of ethics established a fiduciary relationship on a class-wide basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an ad hoc fiduciary duty between a financial advisor and a client requires a multi-factor, case-by-case analysis, and cannot be established solely based on professional rules and ethical codes.

The applicant developers sought judicial review of two letters from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a dispute with an electricity distributor over whether a new substation was an 'expansion' or an 'enhancement'.

The OEB had provided an opinion that the project was an expansion, meaning the developers were responsible for the costs, and declined to refer the matter for a formal hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OEB's opinion was not the exercise of a statutory power of decision and therefore not subject to judicial review.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had no statutory standing to compel the OEB to hold a hearing.

The City of Ottawa brought an ex-parte motion for an interim injunction against "Persons Unknown" (Freedom Convoy 2022) to restrain ongoing violations of municipal by-laws during a demonstration.

The court granted the injunction, finding overwhelming evidence of by-law breaches and significant disruption to city functions and public safety.

The decision applied the modified test for statutory injunctions under the Municipal Act, emphasizing the public interest in law enforcement over the need to prove irreparable harm or balance of convenience.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of two decisions by the Animal Care Review Board that varied statements of account for animal care to zero.

The Inspector undertook not to seek recovery of the funds or return of the animals, rendering the live dispute moot.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, declining to hear it on the basis that the Inspector had not exhausted adequate alternative remedies, specifically the Board's internal reconsideration process.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision refusing to extend the limitation period for her non-earner benefits claim.

The application was filed five days after the two-year limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal made three errors of law: it incorrectly measured the length of delay and prejudice from the date of the insurer's denial rather than the expiry of the limitation period, and it failed to consider new evidence regarding the appellant's bona fide intention to appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to produce their former lawyers' file in a medical negligence action.

The respondents sought the file to support a limitation period defence, arguing the appellants' former lawyers' file was relevant to the incapable plaintiff's capacity and whether his brother acted as a de facto litigation guardian, and that privilege had been impliedly waived.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that instructing counsel does not make one a de facto litigation guardian, and that the appellants had not impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege over the file.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's award dismissing a grievance over the respondent hospital's unilateral decision to change the designated home worksites of finance department employees following a merger.

The union argued the collective agreement's mobility clause prohibited this change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the collective agreement did not restrict the hospital's management right to transfer employees between worksites.

The court also ruled that an affidavit tendered by the union to supplement the record was inadmissible.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying a motion to set aside an eviction order for rent arrears.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Board failed to consider emailed receipts proving payment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to send the evidence to the correct email address within the specified timeframe, and noted the receipts would not have cured the late payments anyway.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent landlord.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Halton Region Conservation Authority to void a development permit for a home renovation.

After the partial collapse of walls during construction, the Authority voided the permit without notice or a hearing, claiming the scope of work had fundamentally changed.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding it both unreasonable and procedurally unfair because the Authority failed to follow the mandatory show cause hearing process set out in section 8 of O. Reg. 162/06.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of M.R. Gibson J. dated September 20, 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 party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable by the moving party to the responding party fixed at $4,100.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 4, 2021.

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

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, refusing to re-open the hearing, and revoking his certificate of registration.

The appellant had failed to attend the discipline hearing, claiming a medical emergency, but the Committee proceeded in his absence and later dismissed his motion to re-open, finding his claims of illness lacked objective evidence and were part of a pattern of delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Committee's decisions to deny adjournments, proceed in absentia, refuse to re-open the hearing, or impose revocation as a penalty for grossly inadequate clinical care and dishonest billing.

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 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 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 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.