G. Dennis Lane

The plaintiff sued the defendant law firm for negligence after the expiry of the statutory limitation period, pursuant to a tolling agreement.

The defendant then commenced third party proceedings for contribution and indemnity against the third party accountants.

The third parties successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim against them because the statutory limitation period between the plaintiff and the third parties had expired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that section 8 of the Negligence Act applies to all contribution claims and requires the main action to be commenced within the applicable statutory limitation period, which was not done here.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision assigning the teaching of the Life and Learning Skills program for students aged 14 and older in secondary schools to members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

The applicant argued the work should belong to elementary teachers because the academic content was at the primary level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB correctly interpreted the Education Act by considering the physical location, educational purpose, and body of pupils, and reasonably applied labour relations principles to conclude the work belonged to secondary school teachers.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that upheld a union grievance after the employer's consultant destroyed interview notes.

The Board found that the destruction of these documents irreparably prejudiced the union's case and prevented a fair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board did not deny natural justice by deciding the matter on a preliminary fairness issue without hearing the merits.

The Court further held that the Board had the implied statutory authority to enforce disclosure obligations by allowing the grievance.

The appellant municipality appealed a costs order made against it after it sought to enforce a support assignment through the Family Responsibility Office.

The support obligation had previously ceased, but the assignor had falsely certified it was active.

The Divisional Court found that while the lower court had jurisdiction to award costs against the appellant because it became a party by filing a Notice of Financial Interest, the costs order was unjustified on the merits.

The appellant had no reason to doubt the assignment's validity and its failure to attend the motion was not unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the costs order against the appellant was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Service Manager's decision refusing to extend the time to apply for special priority status for rent-geared-to-income housing assistance.

The applicant, a victim of past abuse, missed the deadline due to her immigration status at the time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Service Manager reasonably exercised his discretion by prioritizing applicants who were at risk of further abuse.

The court noted that deference is owed to polycentric decisions involving the allocation of limited public resources.

The applicant veterinarian sought judicial review to prevent the College of Veterinarians of Ontario from proceeding with a disciplinary hearing regarding his medical records.

The applicant argued that the College's reliance on records he voluntarily provided during a separate investigation constituted an abuse of process, and that the College was estopped because his practice was being monitored at the time without complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the College's decision to proceed was not patently unreasonable and did not violate principles of fundamental justice or constitute an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a $40,000 substantial indemnity costs award made against it following the dismissal of its summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred by relying on the respondents' counsel's misrepresentation that there was no arithmetical error in the bill of costs, which had inflated the claim by $8,500.

The Court also found errors in awarding costs for appearances where no costs were ordered and for excessive preparation time.

The appeal was allowed and the costs award was reduced to $25,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim for unpaid services against Tricaster, the shareholding company of the co-defendant Nucleus, and awarding costs of $15,339.44 to the respondents.

The appellant had obtained default judgment against Nucleus but could not collect because Tricaster seized Nucleus' assets under a General Security Agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil or find an implied partnership.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial costs award to $7,500, finding the original amount disproportionately high given the modest amount at stake and the circumstances.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when the car she was a passenger in swerved off the road and struck a Canada Post super mailbox, which fell onto the car.

The plaintiff sought to amend the statement of claim to add Canada Post as a defendant, alleging negligence in the placement and anchoring of the mailbox.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding no duty of care to users of the roadway.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that it was not plain and obvious that Canada Post owed no duty of care to users of the roadway who might veer off and strike an unsafely anchored structure.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with her discrimination complaint against her former employer.

The Commission had exercised its discretion under section 34 of the Human Rights Code to dismiss the complaint because it was filed more than six months after the events giving rise to it, and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the Commission's exercise of discretion was not patently unreasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding compensation to the complainant for alleged sexual and physical abuse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainant's uncorroborated evidence over conflicting evidence, and by relying on a medical report that was never disclosed to the appellants.

The Board's decision was quashed and costs were awarded to the appellants.

The respondent Minister brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an application brought by the applicant landowner on short notice.

The parties agreed to the adjournment, but the applicant sought terms to prevent the inclusion of its lands in the Greenbelt area pending the hearing.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the planning process to proceed.

The court also noted that section 14 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act prevents the granting of an injunction against the Crown.

The motion for adjournment was granted without terms.

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 tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering her eviction for allegedly assaulting another tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's application, finding that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and failed to properly consider relief from eviction under s. 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The Court noted the tenant's lack of prior history of violence, her success in the related criminal proceeding, and her responsibility for four minor children.

The appellant denturist appealed a Discipline Committee's findings of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct, which included fabricating inadequate dentures, poor record-keeping, and secretly tape-recording a conversation with a patient.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that evidence was obtained through an unlawful warrantless search and seizure, noting the items were voluntarily supplied or in plain view.

However, because the Committee's reasons contained factual errors regarding the timing of the denture fabrication and the appellant's practices after taking remedial courses, the court remitted the matter of penalty to the Committee for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which found that his union did not breach its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, a temporary employee, argued the union should have pursued his wrongful dismissal grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Vice-Chair's conclusion that the union's decision not to proceed with the grievance was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and time-limited spousal support.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the net payment ordered by the trial judge was under $25,000, despite the amount in dispute being much higher.

On the merits, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's property division was supported by evidence and that time-limited spousal support was appropriate given the husband's failure to rehabilitate himself and his persistent prescription drug abuse.

The defendants appealed a condition imposed by a motions judge on an order compelling the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff, injured in a motor vehicle accident, had previously been examined by experts retained by the statutory accident benefits insurer.

The motions judge upheld the order for tort medical examinations but added a condition prohibiting the defendants from calling the accident benefits experts at trial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the condition, finding that the motions judge erred by interfering with the Master's discretion without finding an error in principle, and by preempting the trial judge's statutory discretion regarding the number of expert witnesses.

Following an appeal that set aside an order extending limitation periods but adjourned the issues to trial, all parties sought costs.

The Court of Appeal determined that the respondents were substantially successful because they defeated the appellants' motion for summary judgment and maintained their position that the limitation issues should be decided at trial.

The respondents were awarded costs of $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The insured was securing a boat to a trailer attached to his van using a bungee cord.

The cord snapped and injured his friend's eye.

The friend sued the insured.

The insured had three insurance policies: an automobile policy with Axa, a boat liability policy with Dominion, and a homeowner's policy with Co-Operators.

Axa and Dominion appealed the application judge's decision regarding coverage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the Axa automobile policy must respond because securing the boat was an ordinary activity related to the use of the vehicle.

The Court also upheld the finding that Dominion's policy provided only excess coverage for both indemnity and defence costs, and that the Co-Operators policy explicitly excluded the claim.