G. Dennis Lane

The applicants sought judicial review of a racing commission decision dismissing their appeal of a stewards' ruling.

They argued the commission breached natural justice by failing to adequately address evidence that another jockey's whip caught in their horse's tail, causing interference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the commission's reasons were adequate, the evidence was considered, and the factual findings were not patently unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding damages and costs arising from a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on damages, finding no error in the trial judge's calculation or refusal to award punitive damages.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the trial judge erred in denying costs under Rule 76.13(3) because the action included non-monetary claims and faced a substantial counterclaim, making the ordinary procedure appropriate.

The appellant was awarded trial costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the plaintiff unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by refusing their request for an adjournment on the day of trial.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion by offering an adjournment on the reasonable condition that the appellants pay the claim amount into court, which they refused.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, appealed the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report assessing her former solicitor's bill for services.

The appellant argued the solicitor failed to protect her interests and violated procedural requirements of the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant misunderstood the difference between mandatory and permissive procedures under the Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court upheld the Assessment Officer's factual findings and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

Following an application for judicial review, the respondent unions sought costs.

The applicant opposed the costs request, citing serious financial hardship.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event, noting that the unions were required to participate fully due to the applicant's allegations of misconduct.

The court awarded costs of $3,500 to the Teamsters and $5,000 to UA Local 787.

Following an unsuccessful appeal regarding a police complaint, the successful respondent officer sought costs of $18,201.50.

The appellant argued that he pursued the appeal in good faith, had limited financial means, and that a large costs award would deter citizens from advancing legitimate complaints against the police.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event but fixed the quantum at $4,000 all inclusive, considering the lack of complexity, the short hearing, the appellant's personal circumstances, and reasonable expectations.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed partial indemnity costs up to the date of their settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court considered the proportionality of costs in small claims matters and the settlement offers made by both parties.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs but fixed costs at $4,000 all-inclusive in favour of the plaintiffs.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $116,000 following their successful challenge to provisions of the Building Code Act, 1992 and the Building Code Regulation.

The applicants argued they were public interest litigants.

The court agreed, finding that the applicant Association was virtually compelled to bring the application to defend its statutory mandate to regulate professional engineers.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs but reduced the quantum to $75,000, finding the claimed amount exceeded what was fair and reasonable for a two-day hearing.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for summary judgment in a defamation action brought by the respondent.

The respondent's action was based on testimony the appellant gave at a Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the RECO Disciplinary Committee is a statutory tribunal and the appellant's testimony was protected by absolute privilege under the witness immunity rule.

As there was no genuine issue for trial, summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Board of Arbitration decision finding it had discriminated against a unionized security officer.

The employer had stopped offering the employee temporary management shifts after she attended a union convention.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement's anti-discrimination clause was logical and rational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion for judgment on an alleged settlement.

The respondent's counsel had made a settlement offer based on instructions from an individual who managed the recreation centre but lacked authority to settle the litigation.

The appellant accepted the offer.

The motion judge found that the settlement was concluded by mistake, as the respondent never authorized the offer, and exercised his discretion not to enforce it.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's appreciation of the evidence or application of the legal principles regarding mistake and agency.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant against the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The respondent argued that the transcript costs should be disallowed because it had conceded the main legal issue.

The court rejected this argument, finding the facts remained central to the respondent's alternative position.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,733.86 plus GST.

The appellants appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects.

They argued they were denied a fair hearing because the independent legal counsel retained to advise the Committee effectively took over the conduct of the hearing.

The Divisional Court agreed, noting numerous instances where the Committee's counsel interrupted the appellants' counsel, purported to speak for the Committee, and engaged in heated arguments.

The findings of guilt were set aside and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

Following a successful judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, the applicant employer sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent union argued for a lower amount in line with typical labour relations cases, while the Board argued no costs should be awarded against it.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $4,000 payable by the union, noting that labour relations cases in the court are generally low-cost.

No costs were awarded against the Board as it only addressed the standard of review.

Following an appeal and cross-appeals regarding new home warranty issues, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The homeowner was substantially successful overall, as Tarion lost on several policy points and the homeowner succeeded on issues relating to the kitchen floor and garage wall.

The court rejected the homeowner's claim for substantial indemnity costs and fixed partial indemnity costs at $6,500 plus disbursements, payable 90% by Tarion and 10% by the builder.

The appellant home inspection company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $9,148.58 for gross negligence in failing to discover a latent water leakage defect.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding of gross negligence, noting the inspector observed poor exterior water management and reported normal moisture levels despite dry walls.

The court also refused to enforce the contract's limitation of liability clause, finding it was a contract of adhesion presented after much work was done, and the gross negligence constituted a fundamental breach that deprived the respondents of the entire benefit of the contract.

The Ministry of the Attorney General sought judicial review of two orders by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of total dollar figures for legal services rendered to other ministries.

The Ministry argued the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege under s. 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the IPC correctly applied the rebuttable presumption of privilege test from Maranda v. Richer and reasonably concluded the presumption was rebutted because disclosing the aggregate amounts would not reveal privileged communications.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that the collective agreement did not require the respondent City to pay the Ontario Health Premium for its full-time employees.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, following recent Court of Appeal jurisprudence on similar grievances.

The Court found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement language, concluding that the parties did not intend the employer to pay the income tax-based premium, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' appeal from a $4,000 Small Claims Court judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs of up to $7,691 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, noting that the appeal was not frivolous.

The court also found the requested partial indemnity costs of $6,223.87 to be disproportionate to the $4,000 amount at stake.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $2,500 plus disbursements.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent police officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged the officer breached his Charter rights by administering a breath test without proper caution after the appellant was evicted from a park.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the Hearing Officer to conclude the breath test was voluntary and the officer's actions in ensuring the safety of the campers and the public did not constitute discreditable conduct.