G. Dennis Lane

The appellant appealed a decision regarding Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, arguing a conflict between sections 47(7) and 64(1)(a) of O. Reg. 222/98 concerning new medical evidence.

The Divisional Court found no conflict, holding that the Tribunal may only consider new medical evidence relating to the appellant's condition at the effective date of the Director's decision.

The appeal was allowed on consent and referred back to a differently constituted Tribunal for a rehearing, with no costs awarded.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment and brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding a lack of diligent search and that the evidence would not be conclusive.

The court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the respondents were unaware the appellants were operating an independent business, given the level of trust and infrequency of visits.

The appellant, Jazz Air LP, appealed a costs award of $160,000 on a substantial indemnity basis following the dismissal of its motion for an interlocutory injunction against the respondents.

The appellant argued the amount was excessive for a one-day motion and that substantial indemnity was unwarranted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in principle given the unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, the tactical timing of the motion, and the reasonable expectation that the respondents would spare no expense to defend against an injunction that would have catastrophic consequences for their business.

The respondent school board brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the applicant union in support of its application for judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award concerning a teacher's discharge.

The union argued the affidavit was necessary to establish an agreement between the parties and a breach of natural justice regarding the arbitrator's findings on culpable conduct and culminating incidents.

The court found the affidavit failed to establish the alleged agreement, was inconsistent with the record, and did not demonstrate a breach of natural justice or an absence of evidence.

The motion was granted, and the entire affidavit was struck from the record.

The plaintiffs appealed an order dismissing their motion to add the selling dealership as a defendant after the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Highway Traffic Act.

The plaintiffs argued the discoverability principle applied because they only learned of a potential defect when they received a recall notice from the manufacturer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of due diligence in investigating the cause of the accident during the limitation period or in the months following the commencement of the action against the manufacturer.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario revoking its liquor licence.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding noise issues that had the potential to fundamentally alter the Board's conclusion on the public interest.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing, with interim conditions imposed on the appellant's operations.

The appellant's appeal was previously dismissed as premature.

The respondents sought costs for the appeal.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that costs should be deferred to the end of the proceeding, noting the appeal was a discrete episode.

Applying the principle of what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $4,000 for the Chiropractic Review Committee and $3,000 for the General Manager, payable in six months.

The tenants appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal awarding them $2,000 after the landlord disposed of their possessions following an eviction.

The tenants sought $30,000 and argued the Tribunal erred by failing to give reasons for the quantum of damages and for not allowing them to proceed in court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the failure to give reasons is an error of law, and set aside the damages award, allowing the tenants to elect whether to proceed before the Tribunal or a court.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which had dismissed his claim for general damages on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The tenant and his family had been assaulted by the landlord's friends in an attempt to force them to vacate, breaching the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in law, finding that the residual power to 'make any other order that it considers appropriate' under the Tenant Protection Act includes the jurisdiction to award damages for breach of contract.

The Court allowed the appeal and awarded the tenant $4,000 in damages.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund paid death and funeral benefits to the family of an uninsured passenger killed in a motor vehicle accident.

The Fund sought reimbursement from the respondent insurer and initiated arbitration under O. Reg. 283/95.

The respondent objected, arguing the Fund was not an 'insurer' under the regulation.

The arbitrator dismissed the objection, but the appeal judge set aside the award based on previous case law.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Fund's appeal, overruling its previous decision and holding that the Fund is an insurer for the purpose of resolving disputes over the payment of accident benefits and is bound by the mandatory arbitration provisions of the regulation.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund appealed a Superior Court decision that remitted an arbitration award back to the arbitrator.

The dispute arose after Kingsway cancelled an auto insurance policy for non-payment two days before an accident, leading the Fund to pay the injured party's accident benefits and seek reimbursement.

The arbitrator ordered Kingsway to pay the benefits permanently due to a breach of section 2 of O. Reg. 283/95, finding a 'significant nexus' between Kingsway and the insured.

The Superior Court held the arbitration was not under O. Reg. 283/95 because the Fund was not an 'insurer', and remitted the matter to determine if Kingsway was actually an insurer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Fund is an insurer under the regulation, but upheld the decision to remit the matter to the arbitrator to determine if Kingsway was an insurer at the time of the accident.

The appellant appealed an order striking his Amended Statement of Claim against a law firm without leave to amend.

The appellant, a minority shareholder, alleged that the directors committed oppression by diverting corporate funds to pay the law firm's legal fees, and sought an order for the law firm to refund the fees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion to strike was not barred by issue estoppel and that the amended pleading did not disclose a tenable cause of action against the law firm for knowing receipt of a benefit from oppression.

Following the dismissal of an inmate's application for judicial review of a disciplinary decision, the respondents sought $7,000 in costs.

The inmate argued that no costs should be awarded on public interest grounds.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the inmate raised bona fide issues of procedural fairness that were of potential importance to all inmates.

Recognizing the inmate's vulnerable position and the chilling effect a costs award would have on future inmates seeking to protect their rights, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The Union brought a motion to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, who had dismissed the Union's motion to strike an affidavit filed by the City of Hamilton on an application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's certification of the Union.

The Divisional Court panel allowed the motion in part, holding that while affidavit evidence regarding notice was admissible to establish a denial of natural justice, the remaining paragraphs containing evidence not before the Board must be struck out in accordance with the Keeprite principle.

Apotex Inc. sought judicial review of regulations enacted by the Ontario government that reduced the reimbursement price of generic prescription drugs to 50% of brand-name drugs.

Apotex argued the government failed to meet its statutory obligations for public consultation and consideration under Bill 102, and breached procedural fairness based on legitimate expectations.

The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association intervened.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the government met the notice and consultation requirements, the Lieutenant Governor in Council did not exceed its jurisdiction in altering the proposed regulations, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not apply to purely legislative functions.

The applicant, a deaf person, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the failure of the Building Code to require rear window captioning in movie theatres constituted discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal, finding insufficient evidence of a denial of a service and noting that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to amend legislation.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission's gate-keeping decision was not patently unreasonable, as the Tribunal cannot read in provisions to the Building Code to make it comply with the Human Rights Code.

The moving defendant, an assistant Crown Attorney, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion for summary judgment in a malicious prosecution action.

The plaintiff had been charged with murder, but the charges were withdrawn after new evidence surfaced implicating another individual.

The motion judge found that while reasonable and probable grounds existed initially, there were disputed facts regarding the reasonableness of continuing the prosecution after the new evidence emerged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflict of principle or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The applicant, an inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, sought judicial review of a decision finding him guilty of assaulting another inmate and imposing a penalty of 10 days in segregation.

He argued the process was procedurally unfair and that the disciplinary system violated section 7 of the Charter due to institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was treated fairly, as he was informed of the charge, offered counsel, and given the opportunity to question his accuser and call witnesses, which he declined.

The Court also declined to decide the Charter issue, noting the lack of an evidentiary record to support the claim of institutional bias.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash two decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissing her complaints of privacy breaches under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant argued the Commissioner had a statutory duty to investigate and adjudicate her complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commissioner's role regarding privacy complaints is advisory to the Legislature, not adjudicative.

Furthermore, the court found that the Commissioner's activities in gathering information for her annual report fall within parliamentary privilege and are not subject to judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner denying his request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to notes made by an independent investigator appointed by the City of Toronto.

The investigator had been retained to review the procurement process for the Union Station redevelopment.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the investigator was an independent contractor, not an employee or agent of the City.

Applying the correctness standard of review, the court concluded that the requested records were not in the custody or under the control of the City, and therefore were not subject to disclosure under the Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.