G. Dennis Lane

The appellant tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence was readily available at the time of the original hearing and that the tenant had chosen not to call available witnesses.

Furthermore, the court held that the fresh evidence would not have been conclusive of the issue, applying the test from Sengmueller v. Sengmueller.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the Registrar under the Business Names Act to cancel the registration of business names containing his surname, registered by the respondent company.

The applicant argued the respondent lacked his written consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that an ongoing civil action between the parties regarding the sale of the applicant's business provided an adequate alternative remedy to determine the contractual right to use the name.

The appellants, minority shareholders in Colio Wines of Canada Ltd., appealed the dismissal of their application for an oppression remedy and the appointment of an inspector under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The appellants alleged that a 1992 amalgamation unfairly valued their shares at one cent each.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the appellants failed to provide cogent evidence that oppressive conduct appeared to have occurred, as required by s. 161(2) of the Act.

The court confirmed that mere suspicion or a report suggesting oppression 'may have been' present is insufficient to warrant the appointment of an inspector.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties (respondents on the appeal) brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of several orders made by a Board of Inquiry regarding a racially poisoned workplace at a detention centre.

The Board had ordered the Ministry to publicize its decision, implement organizational reforms, and conduct anti-racism training.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and lifted the stay of the order requiring publication of the decision, finding irreparable harm to the complainant if he was kept out of the workplace.

However, the court declined to lift the stays on the orders requiring organizational reforms and training, finding that the balance of convenience favoured leaving them in place until the appeal was decided, given the substantial public funds involved and the Ministry's pending appeal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the Employment Standards Act awarding the respondent employee vacation pay for his last two years of employment.

The employer argued the employee had ample down time during the winter months to take vacation in lieu of pay.

The adjudicator found the employee worked year-round and was entitled to vacation pay.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, found no palpable or overriding error in the adjudicator's findings, and dismissed the application.

This is a supplementary reasons for judgment regarding costs following an appeal and a Rule 59 motion concerning a pension plan death benefit.

The successful appellant sought substantial indemnity costs payable out of the pension plan fund.

The court found that the litigation clarified a problematic part of the Pension Benefits Act, benefiting members and administrators of plans throughout Ontario.

Applying the principle that costs of litigation necessary for the administration of a trust should be paid from the trust, the court awarded the appellant substantial indemnity costs of $40,000 plus disbursements, payable by the Board from the funds of the Plan.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that the registrar lacked jurisdiction to sign the default judgment because the plaintiff's claims for rescission and damages were not for a 'debt or liquidated demand in money' under Rule 19.04(1).

The court set aside the default judgment as irregularly obtained.

The court also set aside the noting in default, holding that the defendants were not required to show a defence on the merits where the default was adequately explained and not deliberate.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a decision of the Licence Registration Appeal Tribunal, which directed the Registrar not to revoke the respondents' registration despite convictions for odometer tampering.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct test from Brenner and that its findings of fact and credibility were supported by the evidence.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time for perfecting its appeal from a Master's order refusing an amendment to a statement of claim.

The appeal had been dismissed by the Registrar for delay.

The court found that the appellant had a continuing intention to appeal, there was sufficient merit to the appeal, the delay was adequately explained by a dispute over the wording of the Master's order, and the alleged prejudice was speculative.

The court granted the motion, set aside the Registrar's order, and extended the time to perfect the appeal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating an employee who was terminated for excessive innocent absenteeism under an attendance management system.

The arbitrator found that the termination violated the Human Rights Code because the absences relied upon included a compensable workplace injury, and the employer failed to show undue hardship in accommodating the employee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's decision and finding no error in the arbitrator's application of human rights principles regarding the duty to accommodate.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which prohibited him from submitting accounts to OHIP for three years after he defrauded the public.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the College had jurisdiction to impose the billing prohibition under s. 51(2)(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Court held that the penalty was reasonable and entitled to deference, and rejected the argument that the prohibition was equivalent to an additional three-year suspension.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $7,000 to the respondent.

The trial judge found that the respondent and the appellant Tony Chao had an oral agreement wherein Chao would hold $7,000 in trust for the respondent in a dormant corporate account.

The appellants argued that the respondent breached his fiduciary duties as an officer and lawyer for the corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample uncontradicted evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that this was a simple contract and no fiduciary duty was breached.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment to enforce a $50,000 penalty clause under minutes of settlement.

The respondent had defaulted on the final payment due to a dishonoured cheque caused by an administrative change, and a replacement cheque had a minor shortfall, both of which were corrected promptly.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to exercise her discretion under Rule 49.09 to decline enforcement of the penalty clause, finding no palpable or overriding error.

The appellant teacher appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Teachers revoking her teaching certificate after she was found guilty of professional misconduct for an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old student.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in admitting expert evidence on 'grooming' at the penalty phase since she was acquitted of actual abuse.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the admission of expert evidence was proper and the penalty of revocation was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order declaring a mistrial and awarding solicitor and client costs thrown away to the defendants, following the plaintiff's late production of documents during trial.

The court found the order was interlocutory.

The motion for leave was brought out of time, and the court declined to extend the time due to an unexplained delay of over two years and a lack of settled intention to appeal.

Furthermore, the court held that even if time were extended, leave would be denied as the costs order was discretionary and there was no conflicting decision or good reason to doubt its correctness.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board brought a motion to amend a previous Divisional Court order regarding the allocation of a deceased member's pre-retirement death benefit between his former spouse and his surviving spouse.

The court held that the former spouse's entitlement under a separation agreement was not limited to benefits accrued after 1986, as the Pension Benefits Act provisions allowing assignment of pension benefits on marriage breakdown applied to both pre-1987 and post-1986 benefits.

However, the court found that section 51(2) of the Act limited the former spouse's entitlement to 50% of the benefits accrued during the period of marriage, which ended on the date of their divorce.

The Ontario Divisional Court issued a decision on costs following an appeal.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 plus GST, awarded to the appellant, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and payable by the respondent, Dr. Darren Payne.

No costs were awarded against the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

Following successful appeals regarding the application of the implied undertaking rule to medical reports, the appellants sought costs.

The respondents argued that no costs should be awarded because the appeals involved a novel and complex question of law with conflicting decisions.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the parties were pursuing their own disclosure interests, and awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the costs for the various stages of the proceedings, ordering that they be payable at the end of the actions to avoid prejudicing the respondents' access to justice.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board that required the College's Registration Committee to issue a certificate of registration to the respondent doctor.

The Registration Committee had previously refused the application on the basis that the respondent was ungovernable due to past disciplinary issues in Quebec.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by failing to show deference to the specialized expertise of the Registration Committee regarding the respondent's qualifications and ethical fitness to practice medicine.

The matter was remitted back to the Registration Committee for further consideration in light of new evidence.

The applicant, a federal Crown corporation, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Board of Inquiry adding it as a respondent to a human rights complaint.

The complainant alleged that the rent calculation formula for social assistance recipients in her co-operative housing, mandated by the applicant's funding agreement, was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's order, holding that the applicant's imposition of funding conditions was a valid exercise of the federal spending power under s. 91(1A) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court applied the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, finding that provincial human rights legislation must be read down so as not to impair the essential powers of a federal agency carrying out its core functions.