Frances P. Kiteley

The appellants co-signed a loan for a third party who subsequently defaulted.

The respondent bank obtained judgment against the appellants at trial.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and made palpable and overriding errors in finding they understood their obligations as co-signers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no apprehension of bias and deferring to the trial judge's factual findings that the appellants were informed of their liability.

However, the court granted the appellants' crossclaim against the primary borrower, which the trial judge had overlooked.

The appellants co-signed a bank loan for a third party who subsequently defaulted and declared bankruptcy.

The bank obtained judgment against the appellants at trial.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and failed to properly assess conflicting evidence regarding their understanding of the loan documents.

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

However, the court granted judgment on the appellants' crossclaim against the primary borrower, which the trial judge had overlooked.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by police officers and sought to file a claim with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board refused to issue an application form on the basis that no criminal charges were brought against the officers and it lacked credible evidence of an assault.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Board denied the applicant procedural fairness by prejudging the merits of his claim under the guise of its gatekeeping function.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing it was denied natural justice when the Board refused its request for an adjournment.

The landlord had requested the adjournment because its representative was unavailable, but provided no evidence or explanation for the unavailability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not err in principle by refusing the adjournment, as the landlord provided no plausible explanation and the prejudice was of its own making.

One judge dissented, arguing the Board failed to balance the prejudice to both parties.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which found that the landlord's restriction of her access to the building's parking garage did not constitute a substantial interference with her reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue of substantial interference is a question of mixed fact and law, over which the court has no jurisdiction.

The court further noted that even if it were a question of law, the Board's conclusion was correct.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal upholding the revocation of his real estate license.

The appellant was an undischarged bankrupt who had previously pleaded guilty to misappropriating trust funds in connection with his real estate business.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's findings of fact and exercise of discretion.

The Court found no palpable and overriding error, concluding that the penalty of revocation was reasonable and necessary to protect the public.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their claim to wind up two family-owned companies under s. 207 of the OBCA.

The appellants argued that irreconcilable differences and a mutual loss of confidence required the court to intervene.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that the appellant had no reasonable expectation that the business would be wound up or that he would continue to exercise de facto control.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a dangerous pursuit.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer and the Commission applied the wrong test by focusing on the objective reasonableness of the force used rather than the appellant's subjective 'sole purpose' for discharging the firearm under s. 8 of O. Reg. 546/99.

The appeal was allowed and the charge of discreditable conduct was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board which held that it lacked jurisdiction to order the implementation of a low-income rate affordability program for natural gas consumers.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the broad statutory authority to fix 'just and reasonable rates' using 'any method or technique' permitted the Board to consider ability to pay.

The majority concluded that while cost of service is the starting point, the Board has the jurisdiction to implement differential pricing to protect the interests of low-income consumers.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for an assault that occurred during a recreational hockey game.

The trial judge found that the appellant deliberately punched the respondent in the face after the referee had stopped play, causing dental injuries.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent did not assume the risk of a deliberate, unprovoked attack and that the liability waiver did not bar recovery.

The court also upheld the award of special damages for future dental work, finding the respondent's dentist was qualified to provide opinion evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant licensee appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario finding it breached s. 45(1) of O. Reg 719/90 by permitting drunkenness on its premises.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board committed an error of law by failing to make a specific finding that the licensee 'permitted' the intoxicated patron to be on the premises, which is an essential element of the infraction.

The finding of a violation was set aside.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order made on the eve of trial that struck the action from the trial list, required a formal motion to amend the Statement of Claim before a Master, and ordered substantial costs thrown away.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's order, which addressed a unique and complicated situation.

Costs of the leave motion were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class action against Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited.

The proposed class action alleged that the respondent's cigarettes were defectively designed because they posed an unreasonable risk of igniting residential fires.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's findings that the proposed class definitions were unacceptably merits-based, that a class action was not the preferable procedure due to overwhelming individual causation issues, and that the proposed litigation plan was unworkable.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding costs was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld the cancellation of his disability benefits.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by finding he and another individual met the definition of 'spouse' under O. Reg. 222/98, asserting that a mutual written declaration was required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal made no error of law and was entitled to consider surrounding circumstances to determine if a declaration had been made.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claims against the City of Toronto and the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of claims based on direct liability and statute-barred parking tags.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding abuse of process, finding that the plaintiff was not seeking to re-litigate or set aside a prior judicial finding.

The appeal was allowed in part, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving party brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside a previous decision refusing leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application involved certificates of approval granted under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Court treated the motion as a hearing de novo due to the moving party refining his position.

Finding that the case engaged matters of public concern and that the moving party had special knowledge and expertise regarding the statement of environmental values, the Court granted leave to intervene.

The respondent, Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, sought costs of $2,000 following a successful application.

The applicant opposed the costs award due to financial circumstances.

The court awarded the requested $2,000, noting it was a fair and reasonable amount given the total bill of costs exceeded $17,000.

The applicants, a pharmacist and his patients, brought a motion for an interim stay of the Executive Officer's decision to terminate the pharmacy's Health Network Subscription Agreement.

The Executive Officer purported to terminate the agreement without cause under the contract, despite statutory provisions governing suspension for cause.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the statutory framework displaced the contractual right to terminate.

Finding that the pharmacy would suffer irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the patients' need for uninterrupted service, the court granted the interim stay, holding that the Proceedings Against the Crown Act did not preclude enjoining a Crown servant from exceeding statutory authority.

Following a successful appeal to the Divisional Court that revoked a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, the appellant police officers sought costs against the respondent.

The court applied the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council, fixing costs on a partial indemnity basis at $7,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and GST.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an arbitrator's award that allowed a grievance regarding holiday pay for daycare workers.

The arbitrator had interpreted the collective agreement to conclude that holiday pay was conditional on the employee working the day immediately following the holiday they were required to work, which in this case was after a summer layoff.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court found the arbitrator's subjective interpretation of the collective agreement was within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.