Faye E. McWatt

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 10, 2021.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent law firm for unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred regarding service of the claim, full and frank disclosure, and the application of the test for setting aside default judgments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that service was properly effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the appellants failed to establish a plausible excuse for not defending the claim or an air of reality to any defence on the merits.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The defendants appealed the certification of a class action claiming intrusion upon seclusion following a massive data breach by third-party hackers.

The certification judge had allowed the claim to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the novel claim would fail.

The Divisional Court majority allowed the appeal and set aside the certification of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, holding that the tort requires an actual intrusion by the defendant, not merely a failure to prevent an intrusion by others.

The plaintiffs' economic interests were adequately protected by the tort of negligence.

The applicant, a family health team, sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's decision to terminate its funding agreement without cause.

The applicant alleged the termination was made in bad faith to cover up fraud by the applicant's former board of directors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the funding agreement was a private law contractual matter not subject to judicial review.

The court applied the Air Canada factors and concluded the decision lacked a sufficient public character.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of bad faith or improper purpose by the Minister.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding it breached the collective agreement by permitting a third-party hotel to use non-union workers for stage events.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably extended the union's jurisdiction beyond theatrical events and misconstrued the prohibition on contracting out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including the use of extrinsic evidence and the broad interpretation of the word 'permit', was internally coherent, logical, and reasonable.