Geoffrey B. Morawetz

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Tribunal based its decision on the appellant's dishonest reporting of pending charges on two occasions, despite the absence of other complaints regarding sexual misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable as the Registrar relies on honest reporting to monitor the industry.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant brought a motion to stay an order that permitted the respondent to vacate a construction lien by posting security for only half the claimed amount, pending an appeal.

The respondent argued the order was interlocutory and unappealable under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court held that an order reducing security for a lien is a final order because it alters the substantive rights of the lien claimant.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm due to the loss of security, and that the balance of convenience favoured the appellant.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an Adjudicator with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, which found that the Toronto Police Service had conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to his access request.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of gang stalking and mind control, and argued that the police failed to produce records documenting these activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the Adjudicator's decision, no breach of procedural fairness, and declining to consider Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.

The appellant rental car company appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent insurer was the first loss insurer for a motor vehicle accident involving a rental car.

The driver of the rental car was a listed driver, but not a named insured, under her father's standard Ontario Automobile Policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under the clear terms of the policy, rental vehicle coverage is only available to the named insured or their spouse.

Because coverage was not available to the listed driver, the priority provisions of s. 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act were not triggered, and the rental company's insurer was liable.

The appellant tenant requested an adjournment of her appeal to allow additional time to perfect it.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to July 16, 2018, on strict conditions.

These conditions included the ongoing payment of rent, providing evidence of an application to an assisted living facility, and payment of $750 in costs to the respondent landlord.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to involuntarily transfer a Grade 12 student to a new school under its Fresh Start Policy following his involvement in an assault on another student.

The applicants argued the transfer was an unauthorized disciplinary measure, that they were denied procedural fairness, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the transfer was an administrative measure aimed at protecting the victim's well-being, not a disciplinary sanction.

The court also held that the procedural fairness owed was met and the superintendent's decision was reasonable.

The applicant, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, sought judicial review of a disciplinary decision made by the party that fined him $50,000 for a rules violation.

The party brought a motion to quash the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that political parties are private, voluntary associations.

Applying the factors from Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority, the court concluded that the party's disciplinary decisions do not involve the exercise of state power and are therefore not subject to public law remedies like certiorari.

The National Bank of Canada appealed an order dismissing its motion to set aside an ex parte order that paid surplus tax sale proceeds to the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The Bank, as a first and second mortgagee, had priority at law over the FRO, an execution creditor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in interpreting s. 380 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Court held that the Bank's failure to apply for the funds did not extinguish its legal priority, and the FRO was not entitled to the proceeds.

The FRO was ordered to repay the funds to the Bank.

The appellant, a former recipient of income support, appealed the Director's decision to pay his medical transportation benefit directly to a taxi company.

The Social Benefits Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 21(2) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court held that regardless of whether extended health benefits constitute income support, s. 21(1) limits appeals to decisions affecting eligibility or the amount of benefits.

As the direct payment decision affected neither, the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration that a Fire Marshal guideline regarding fire alarm audibility was invalid and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement.

The applicant had previously appealed an inspection order to the Fire Marshal and then to the Fire Safety Commission, but sought judicial review before the Commission hearing proceeded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances or true question of jurisdiction that would justify bypassing the ongoing administrative process.

The applicant, an Ontario resident, was injured in an ATV accident in British Columbia.

He applied for statutory accident benefits in Ontario.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the ATV was not an 'automobile' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because it was not required to be insured in British Columbia.

The applicant sought judicial review of the FSCO Director's Delegate's decision upholding the denial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable to apply British Columbia legislation to determine whether the ATV required insurance, and thus the ATV did not meet the definition of an automobile.

The appellants, construction trades, appealed a Master's decision granting summary judgment dismissing their breach of trust actions against the respondents and refusing to lift bankruptcy stays.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that the appellants' breach of trust claims were discovered when they signed minutes of settlement in 2009, making their 2012 and 2013 actions statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Consequently, there was no basis to lift the bankruptcy stays under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that summarily dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal by a retail store.

The Tribunal had found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to point to evidence establishing a link between the store's actions and his race or colour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were transparent, intelligible, and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicant Employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reclassified the Employment Relations Officer position to a higher level.

The Employer argued it was denied procedural fairness because the arbitrator failed to bifurcate the hearing, depriving it of the opportunity to lead evidence on the proper classification level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Employer should have known classification was in issue given the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing without objection.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion to set aside a legal ruling made by a motion judge who had dismissed its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying appeal had already been heard and dismissed, rendering the current motion moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting the lack of an adversarial context, judicial economy concerns, and the fact that the applicant was seeking a broad declaration rather than overturning an order.

The motion was dismissed.

The University of Ottawa brought a motion to set aside a decision finding that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review brought by the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa.

The Association sought to challenge the compensation paid to two non-unionized employees, arguing it violated wage restraints under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the application, holding that the compensation decision was essentially a private employment matter lacking the requisite public law dimension for judicial review.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Monitor appealed a Claims Officer's decision allowing a landlord's claim for liquidated damages under a lease guarantee.

The Monitor argued the Claims Officer failed to consider a lease provision regarding the sale of the property.

The landlord cross-appealed the Claims Officer's finding that it breached a duty to be forthright by failing to disclose the property's foreclosure.

The Superior Court granted the Monitor's appeal, remitting the quantification issue back to the Claims Officer due to an error of law in contractual interpretation.

The court dismissed the landlord's cross-appeal, affirming that creditors owe a duty of forthrightness in a CCAA claims process.

The applicants, RGL Reservoir Management Inc. and 10504360 Canada Inc., sought an interim order under section 192(4) of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to approve procedural matters for meetings of secured debtholders and shareholders to vote on a proposed plan of arrangement.

The arrangement aimed to effect a recapitalization transaction, reducing RGL's indebtedness by approximately $333 million and annual cash interest expense by $20 million.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed arrangement met the statutory requirements of the CBCA, was put forward in good faith for a valid business purpose, and that it was impracticable to achieve the fundamental change through other CBCA provisions.

The court also approved a limited stay of proceedings to facilitate the transaction.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for Target Canada, the Monitor brought a motion for a declaration that the claim of a pharmacist franchisee, T-Pharma, was fully and finally resolved except for the amount to be deducted for mitigation.

The assignee of the claim opposed the motion, raising various issues including claims for reimbursement of bank loans and legal retainers.

The court found that the respondent's objections were impermissible collateral attacks attempting to re-litigate issues already decided by the Claims Officer and upheld on appeal.

The court granted the Monitor's declaration and set a schedule for determining the final mitigation amount.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, representative counsel for pharmacist franchisees brought a motion for approval of their fees and disbursements totaling approximately $1.95 million.

The Pharmacy Franchisee Association of Canada and several individual pharmacists objected to the fees on various grounds, including the allocation of fees and the overall amount.

The court dismissed the objections, finding that the fees were properly allocated based on when claims were resolved and that the total amount was fair and reasonable given the complexity of the matter, the time expended, and the results achieved.

The fee request was approved in full.