Flinn

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award on a policy grievance, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by making factual findings related to individual grievances that were not before him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator properly used uncontested background facts to provide context for the broad policy award.

The court held that determining facts relevant to the award was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, and his findings were not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying him standing at an ongoing inquest.

The coroner found the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements for standing under either the public law or private law tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the coroner's decision was entitled to curial deference and was not unreasonable.

The court emphasized the need to avoid interrupting the ongoing statutory hearing and found no serious error in principle that would justify interference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing her complaint that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant alleged the union failed to incorporate an agreed term regarding the repayment of Employment Insurance premiums into a settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found the Board's conclusion that the written memorandum reflected the final settlement was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order varying a permanent custody order.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the variation order, adopting the reasons of the judge who granted leave to appeal.

The court noted that the original custody order was made after a full hearing with full reasons, and the concerns expressed in Sypher v. Sypher did not apply.

The moving parties appealed their property assessments to the Ontario Municipal Board, which dismissed the appeals.

A single judge of the Divisional Court denied their motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties then brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside the denial of leave.

The Divisional Court held that a decision granting or denying leave to appeal made by a single judge can only be set aside if the judge declined jurisdiction.

As the motions judge applied the correct test and did not decline jurisdiction, the motion was dismissed.