Ferrier J.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee revoking his teaching certificate due to incapacity.

The Committee relied on a provisional psychiatric diagnosis of delusional disorder based on a document review, as the appellant refused to attend a psychiatric assessment or the final days of his hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was admissible and the Committee's decision was reasonable.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant waived his right to complain by choosing not to attend the hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had concluded that the applicant's employment was terminated for willful disobedience, which disentitled him to termination pay under O. Reg. 288/01 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee placed on administrative leave without pay due to bail restrictions following an arrest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied established arbitral jurisprudence requiring employers to attempt to identify an appropriate temporary position for employees precluded from performing normal duties due to pending criminal charges.

The court rejected the employer's argument that this principle was inapplicable because its actions were in response to bail restrictions.

The applicant purchased property for a retail store and sought access from a provincial highway.

The Ministry of Transportation denied the request for safety reasons, citing a policy preferring municipal road access when available.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the Ministry unlawfully fettered its discretion by strictly applying the policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Ministry had genuinely considered alternatives and expert evidence before reasonably concluding no safe highway access could be provided.

The moving parties brought a motion to vary or set aside a decision of Swinton J., which had dismissed their motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

Swinton J. had dismissed the motion on the basis of res judicata, as Jennings J. had previously dismissed a motion seeking the same relief.

The Divisional Court agreed with Swinton J. that she was bound by the decision of Jennings J., and that the proper recourse was to appeal or move to vary the decision of Jennings J., rather than bringing another motion before a different judge.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judge's decision to deduct Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) from a jury award for past income loss, which reduced the award to zero, and the subsequent costs order against him.

The Divisional Court upheld the IRB deduction, finding no evidence the jury had already accounted for it.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge breached natural justice by deciding the defendants' entitlement to costs without hearing submissions from the plaintiff.

The costs issue was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a co-owned property and requiring him to vacate the premises prior to the sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the order directing the sale on the open market, finding no authority to deny a co-owner the right to market exposure.

However, the court varied the order to allow the appellant to remain in possession until closing, noting the applications judge failed to consider the hardship of immediate eviction, the impracticalities of selling a vacant house, and the appellant's willingness to maintain mortgage and expense payments.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and retained a paralegal to negotiate a settlement with the tortfeasors' insurer.

The plaintiff later sued the tortfeasors and the paralegal, alleging the paralegal was negligent and the settlement was invalid.

The paralegal cross-claimed against the tortfeasors, arguing their insurer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff not to negotiate with an unauthorized paralegal.

The Divisional Court allowed the tortfeasors' appeal and struck the cross-claim, holding that a liability insurer owes no duty of care to a plaintiff making a claim against its insured, as this would create an impossible conflict of interest.

The moving party brought a motion pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of Gans J. The Divisional Court considered the criteria for setting aside a Registrar's order, noting that the overriding consideration is what the justice of the case requires.

The court found that Gans J. was entitled to conclude there was insufficient evidence to relieve the appellant from the operation of the rules.

The motion was dismissed with costs payable from the estate and charged against the moving party's interest.

The estate trustee and a residual beneficiary appealed a trial judgment that found the deceased's daughter and grandchildren were dependants under the Succession Law Reform Act and ordered the estate to be kept open indefinitely to provide them housing.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the will failed to adequately provide for the dependants.

However, the Court found the trial judge's administrative scheme, which required the estate to obtain a mortgage it could not afford, was impossible to implement.

The Court varied the order, directing the property be transferred to the dependant daughter, who must obtain a mortgage to pay estate debts and a lump sum to the residual beneficiary, with the property to be sold in 2018 and proceeds divided.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that combined two separate lots on a registered plan of subdivision into a single assessment roll number classified as 'large industrial property class'.

The appellant argued the properties should be assessed separately as 'industrial property class'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly interpreted the word 'parcel' under the Assessment Act and O. Reg. 282/98, as the properties were occupied by a single occupant and collectively exceeded the required square footage.

The City of Ottawa sought judicial review of an Arbitration Board decision that reinstated an employee who had been terminated for excessive absenteeism under a Last Chance Agreement.

The Board found that the employee suffered from a disability (an anxio-depressive state) and that the City discriminated against her by counting disability-related absences toward the threshold in the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the Board's findings of disability and prima facie discrimination were supported by the evidence and not patently unreasonable.

The City of London appealed a decision granting the respondents' application to overturn the Chief Building Official's (CBO) refusal to issue unconditional building permits.

The CBO had issued permits conditional on the repair of a defective gabion wall on the property, which was subject to a site plan agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the CBO acted outside his statutory authority.

The Court held that site plan approval constitutes 'applicable law' under the Building Code Act, and the CBO lawfully imposed conditions bearing a logical nexus to the property's use and the ongoing maintenance obligations in the site plan agreement.

Deloitte & Touche LLP appealed an order of the Ontario Securities Commission authorizing the disclosure of written answers provided by Deloitte during an investigation to the respondents in a related enforcement proceeding.

Deloitte argued the information was not relevant, that disclosure was not in the public interest, and that the information was privileged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission reasonably concluded the information was relevant to the respondents' ability to make full answer and defence, that the public interest favoured disclosure, and that the information was not privileged because it did not originate in confidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Social Benefits Tribunal decision denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by overlooking medical evidence and his inability to function in the workplace.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal correctly interpreted the legislation, properly considered the medical evidence, and made credibility findings that supported its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a person with a disability.

The appellant real estate agency appealed the dismissal of its claim for commissions against the respondents.

The trial judge found the listing agreement invalid because the agent failed to leave a copy with the vendor, as required by section 35 of the Business Brokers Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the Court noted the trial judge erred in concluding that failure to post the listing on MLS within two days invalidated the agreement, and that agents are required to verify a vendor's authority or sole ownership before signing a listing agreement.

The Minister of Finance appealed an order granting the respondent an extension of time to file a notice of appeal regarding a tax assessment.

The respondent had filed his notice of appeal 37 days after the 90-day limitation period prescribed by the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the court has no jurisdiction to extend the express limitation period set out in the Act, and that the Minister was not estopped from relying on the limitation period.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by overlooking medical evidence and making findings of fact without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal correctly interpreted the legislation, properly considered the medical evidence, and made credibility findings that supported its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a person with a disability.

The tenants appealed a decision regarding a rent decrease related to property taxes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants' constitutional issue due to lack of an evidentiary record and failure to provide proper notice to the Minister of Justice under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the Tribunal erred in initially dismissing the landlord's application based on a delay in filing evidence, as the delay was caused by the City and did not prejudice the tenants.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent employee was constructively dismissed and awarding her damages.

The respondent, a director, had refused to accept a corporate restructuring that required her to report to a newly appointed assistant vice-president rather than the senior vice-president.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in construing the altered reporting obligation as a transfer of responsibility.

Applying an objective test, the court found that the structural change did not constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract, and therefore, there was no constructive dismissal.