G. Dennis Lane

The applicant teacher was acquitted of criminal charges relating to alleged sexual misconduct with a former student in 1991.

The Ontario College of Teachers subsequently brought disciplinary proceedings against him under 1997 regulations.

The discipline committee refused the applicant's request for an adjournment, proceeded in his absence, admitted the criminal trial transcript and judge's obiter findings without adequate reasons, and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the committee breached natural justice by arbitrarily refusing the adjournment and failing to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Court also held that applying the 1997 regulations to 1991 conduct offended the rule against retrospective application of legislation.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The court declined to award costs to the successful respondent co-operative, citing the appellant's difficult financial circumstances and the respondent's failure to cooperate with the City to enable the appellant to obtain a housing subsidy.

The court also rejected the respondent's request for costs against the appellant's solicitor personally.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant doctor brought a motion before the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a motions judge's order.

The motions judge had dismissed the applicant's entire judicial review application, even though only a motion for an injunction and mandatory order regarding a College investigation was before him.

The Divisional Court agreed that the motions judge was correct to refuse the injunction and mandatory order, but amended the formal order to clarify that only the motion, not the underlying judicial review application, was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay compensation to an employee terminated shortly after returning from maternity leave.

The applicant argued the employee had quit and alleged procedural unfairness in the investigation and hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the Board's factual findings and decision to award compensation were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellants appealed a judgment finding them liable for corporate oppression and ordering them to pay $1,075,000 to the respondent.

The application judge found that the individual appellant stripped the corporate appellant of profits from a property sale to purchase another property, defeating the respondent's ability to collect on a prior judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the conduct was oppressive, and upholding the remedy and substantial indemnity costs award.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the plaintiff's action due to a five-year delay, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs for the motion for leave and the appeal.

The respondent opposed the costs award, arguing impecuniosity and blaming his former solicitor for the delay.

The Divisional Court rejected the respondent's arguments, finding that a costs award was appropriate.

The court fixed the costs payable to the appellant at $7,500 all-inclusive, considering the overall reasonableness of the amount.

The appellant, a natural gas distributor, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that denied the recovery of interest and regulatory costs associated with $531,794 in prudently incurred but late-reported gas costs.

The Board had allowed the recovery of the principal amount over three years to mitigate the impact on customers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision involved policy considerations and rate-setting expertise, was subject to a reasonableness standard of review, and was a reasonable balancing of utility and customer interests.

Following a successful appeal that reduced a costs award from $40,000 to $25,000, the appellants sought substantial indemnity costs for the appeal.

They argued this was justified because the respondents' former counsel made an arithmetic error that misled the motion judge and refused to correct it.

The Divisional Court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting the offers to settle did not meet Rule 49 requirements and the amount claimed for costs ($25,820.47) exceeded the amount at stake in the appeal, violating the principle of proportionality.

The court awarded the appellants costs fixed at $10,000 plus disbursements.

Following a successful appeal regarding entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, the appellant sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $31,000 for the entire action.

The respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs of $5,000.

The Divisional Court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, noting the offers to settle did not strictly comply with Rule 49.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations, the court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs fixed at $4,500 for the motion and $6,000 for the appeal, plus disbursements.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal based on allegations of assault and causing a disturbance.

The tenant, who suffers from schizophrenia, argued the Tribunal failed to consider her disability and the landlord's duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

Due to an indecipherable audio recording, no transcript of the Tribunal hearing was available.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing, holding that the absence of a transcript made it impossible to determine whether the Tribunal had properly considered the tenant's disability and the landlord's duty to accommodate.

The applicants, former foster parents, brought a motion to admit several affidavits on their judicial review application.

The respondents filed responding and reply affidavits.

The Divisional Court noted that the indiscriminate filing of affidavits likely offended the rule in Keeprite, but concluded it was not feasible to parse the inextricably woven evidence paragraph by paragraph.

The court admitted all affidavits, except for a portion of one affidavit that the applicants agreed to strike, noting it would separate the wheat from the chaff during the hearing.

The applicant, which operates both a nursing home and a retirement home, sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal had ruled that because the applicant held a nursing home license, its entire operation, including the private retirement home, was a 'public sector employer' subject to the proxy method of comparison under the Pay Equity Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding that a literal interpretation of the statute led to absurd and unfair results, such as forcing a private, unfunded retirement home to use a public sector pay equity method simply because of common ownership with a nursing home.

The Court held that the definition must be read to apply only to the extent of the nursing home operations.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeals, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs of $7,000 for each of the two appeals.

The respondents argued for a premium based on policy considerations and the appellant's conduct.

The court rejected the request for a premium or substantial indemnity costs, finding that the appellant raised genuine issues regarding jurisdiction and damages.

The court fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondents at $4,500 for each appeal, for a total of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Commissioner upholding the Ministry's refusal to disclose expense records and notebooks of the OPP security detail for former Premier Harris.

The Assistant Commissioner found that disclosing the records could reveal the size and pattern of the security detail, reasonably endangering the safety of the Premier and officers under s. 14(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Assistant Commissioner applied the correct test and reasonably concluded there was an evidentiary basis for the exemption.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her claims for benefits.

The Tribunal had found the applicant not credible and concluded that her job duties did not cause her absence and that no specific accident occurred.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal carefully reviewed the evidence and gave reasons for its decision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a policy grievance regarding vacation pay.

The union argued that employees with 1 to 3 years of seniority who worked overtime received less than the 4% minimum vacation pay required by the Employment Standards Act.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement's vacation package, which included guaranteed paid days regardless of actual earnings and increased entitlements with seniority, provided a greater benefit overall under s. 5(2) of the Act.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, noting the value of the guaranteed paid days, and dismissed the application.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty order from the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons after admitting to professional misconduct for borrowing large sums of money from patients.

The Committee had ordered a 10-month suspension, part of which could be suspended upon making restitution of $108,000.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, emphasizing deference to professional discipline committees.

Finding no error in principle and noting the appellant's extraordinary breach of trust, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty.

Deloitte & Touche LLP appealed an order of the Ontario Securities Commission authorizing the disclosure of written answers provided by Deloitte during an investigation to the respondents in a related enforcement proceeding.

Deloitte argued the information was not relevant, that disclosure was not in the public interest, and that the information was privileged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission reasonably concluded the information was relevant to the respondents' ability to make full answer and defence, that the public interest favoured disclosure, and that the information was not privileged because it did not originate in confidence.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order staying its Ontario proceedings to realize on security, pending the outcome of related litigation in New York.

The motion judge had found that the controlling mind of the moving party was also the controlling mind of a joint venture partner accused of misappropriating funds in the New York action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflict with prior decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion to stay the proceedings.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which held that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their lands under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Board had concluded that a bed and breakfast could only be established in an existing dwelling.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's restrictive interpretation of the Conservation Plan was open to serious debate and that the point of law warranted appellate attention given the legislation's broad impact.