G. Dennis Lane

The appellants moved to extend the time for filing an appeal from an order of a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court that reinstated the third party's pleadings and set aside a previous costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the underlying order was interlocutory.

Under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act, appeals to the Divisional Court from the Small Claims Court are limited to final orders, meaning the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The applicant sought urgent leave to have a single judge of the Divisional Court hear an application for judicial review to halt an ongoing Law Society Discipline Committee hearing.

The applicant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction due to procedural defects in authorizing the prosecution.

The court dismissed the application as premature, applying the principle that courts should avoid piecemeal judicial review and allow administrative proceedings to run their full course before intervening.

Following a successful judicial review application, the applicants sought costs of $113,017.43 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and applied the principle that a costs award must reflect a fair and reasonable amount for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than an exact measure of actual costs.

The court disallowed costs for proceedings before the administrative tribunal, reduced the hourly rates claimed for counsel, and found the hours claimed for preparation and submissions excessive.

Costs were fixed at $25,681.93 inclusive of disbursements.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenants a rent abatement for the discontinuance of storage lockers.

On appeal, the landlord introduced fresh evidence showing the lockers had been replaced, making the discontinuance temporary.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, terminating the ongoing rent abatement effective May 1, 2003, pursuant to s. 30(5) of Ontario Regulation 194/98, but awarded costs to the tenants because the appeal arose from the landlord's failure to adduce evidence initially and its subsequent change of position.

The Registrar appealed a tribunal decision regarding the registration of a motor vehicle dealer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Vice-Chair erred in law by failing to address the respondent's significant debt and financial responsibility under s. 5(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The court also noted inconsistencies in the Vice-Chair's findings of fact regarding the respondent's interest in a numbered company.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a new hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision but delayed perfecting the application for 13 months.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the applicants offered no explanation for the delay, evaded explicit OLRB orders, and caused ongoing prejudice and uncertainty in a time-sensitive labour relations dispute.

The appellant landlord appealed a tribunal Member's order awarding monetary amounts and a fine to the tenant, arguing lack of evidence, lack of a fair hearing, and lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant chose not to order a transcript of the hearing, and the tapes were subsequently destroyed.

The Divisional Court held that without a transcript, it could not review the evidentiary foundation for the monetary awards.

The court also upheld the $1,000 fine against the landlord, finding it was within the tribunal's guidelines for deterring malicious conduct.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision declining to grant summary judgment against the respondent tenants for breach of a commercial lease.

The tenants had raised defences based on alleged prior representations and a non-competition clause.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that an 'entire agreement' clause precluded reliance on prior representations, and that the non-competition clause only applied if the tenant was not in default.

As the tenants were in arrears before the competing lease was signed, the defences and counterclaim failed.

Summary judgment was granted on liability, with damages to be assessed.

Following a successful appeal setting aside a default judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

The appellants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent wrongly invoked the Registrar's jurisdiction.

The respondent sought costs thrown away due to the appellants' initial failure to defend.

The court declined to award costs of the motion or appeal to either party, noting the appellants' default caused the proceedings and they failed to raise the jurisdictional issue below.

The appellants were ordered to pay $290 in costs thrown away for the steps taken by the respondent in default.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her request to reconsider a previous decision that denied her benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Tribunal had found a lack of temporal connection between her condition and her work.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonability and found that the Tribunal's findings of fact and refusal to reconsider were supported by medical evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to expedite the hearing of the defendant's appeal from an order certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the appeal involved complex issues and that the proposed timeline was too short.

The court found that there were good grounds to expedite the appeal to prevent delay in the ongoing action and to address the vulnerability of the plaintiff franchisees.

The motion was granted, and the appeal was scheduled for the first available two-day period.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay six months of statutory accident benefits as a lump sum and ongoing weekly payments as a term of adjourning the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order, noting that such payments can be ordered to respond to the impact of an adjournment or as part of the insurer's duty of utmost good faith.

The court held that the scale of the payment was not a matter of general importance and refused leave to appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission revoking his horse racing licences for allegedly conspiring to fix a race.

The Commission's majority decision relied heavily on the uncorroborated evidence of an admitted liar who had made a deal to implicate the applicant, while ignoring exculpatory evidence and failing to explain why it disbelieved the applicant's witnesses.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's failure to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and penalty constituted a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding the discharge of an employee for sleeping on the job.

The employee was subject to a Last Chance Agreement that permitted immediate discharge for sleeping at work.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably disregarded medical evidence suggesting the employee suffered from sleep apnea and circadian rhythm disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator carefully considered the evidence and reasonably concluded the sleep apnea only became significant after termination.

The arbitrator's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his application for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by deciding the matter on the issue of delay without giving the applicant an opportunity to address it.

The applicant's own delay in applying for judicial review was satisfactorily explained by his impecuniosity.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further consideration.

The defendant franchisor moved for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding brought by franchisees regarding the withholding of rebates.

The defendant argued that the proposed representative plaintiffs had a conflict of interest with other class members who had different economic arrangements with the franchisor and feared disruption of their businesses.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the issue of whether the representative plaintiffs could fairly and adequately represent the class without conflict was open to serious debate and of general importance to the development of class action law.

The Ontario Municipal Board stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether an order issued after January 1, 2003, affirming or amending the City of Ottawa's ward boundary by-law, could be effective for the 2003 regular municipal elections.

The Ministry argued that ward boundaries cannot be changed after January 1 of an election year under the Municipal Act.

The Divisional Court held that the statutory restriction applied only to by-laws 'dividing' a municipality into wards, not 'redividing' them.

Therefore, the by-law redividing the wards could be effective for the upcoming election.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a tribunal decision.

The Divisional Court adjourned the hearing, directing the parties to provide the complete record of the respondent's prior criminal appeal and written submissions on whether the tribunal impermissibly allowed a collateral attack on those criminal convictions.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding actual damage to vehicles.

The Divisional Court rejected the proposed evidence, applying the Sengmueller test.

The court found the evidence was not relevant to the core issue of non-disclosure of acquisition documents, was readily available at the time of the original hearing, and would not have affected the tribunal's result.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to quash one of their grounds of appeal.

The tribunal had previously granted leave to appeal a Director's order regarding nickel contamination in soil on only one of eight proposed grounds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to limit the scope of the appeal to the ground on which leave was granted.

The court also held that the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory procedural decision, and that the tribunal's decision was reasonable.