Geoffrey B. Morawetz

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel, which had overturned the applicant's decision to waive a horse's disqualification following a positive drug test.

The applicant argued the standard of review was correctness as it involved a true question of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness, as the Panel was interpreting its home statute.

The Court found the Panel's conclusion that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Applicants, Payless ShoeSource Canada Inc. and Payless ShoeSource Canada GP Inc., brought a motion under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for an order approving transactions contemplated under a liquidation consulting agreement and accompanying sale guidelines.

The motion was unopposed, following constructive discussions with various landlords.

The court found it appropriate to approve the agreement and guidelines, noting that any theoretical surplus issue could be addressed at a later stay extension hearing.

The applicants, Payless ShoeSource Canada Inc. and Payless ShoeSource Canada GP Inc., sought and were granted an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

This order included a stay of proceedings, which was extended to Payless ShoeSource Canada LP due to its integral role in the operations.

The court also approved the appointment of FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as Monitor and Ankura Consulting Group LLC as Chief Restructuring Organization (CRO), along with an Administration Charge and a Directors’ Charge.

A cross-border protocol, consistent with the Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) Guidelines, was also approved to coordinate with concurrent U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings.

A comeback hearing was scheduled to address further matters.

The College of Veterinarians appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee excluding evidence against a veterinarian accused of possessing child pornography.

The evidence was obtained by police during a criminal investigation that was later withdrawn due to a conceded s. 8 Charter breach.

The Discipline Committee excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, relying on a case (Viscomi) to find the police search warrant application was materially misleading.

The Divisional Court held that the Committee's reliance on Viscomi was wrong in law, rendering its s. 24(2) Grant analysis unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) which found their complaints against a police officer unsubstantiated.

The Director had initially found evidence of misconduct and referred the matter for adjudication, but later reopened the investigation and reversed his decision after undisclosed communications with the police service.

The Divisional Court found that these undisclosed communications compromised the independence of the Director and breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the Director's decision and remitted the matter for a fresh investigation by a different investigator.

The landlord appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to various rental units, despite the parties having signed commercial lease agreements.

The LTB found that the true nature of the tenancies was residential, based on representations by the landlord's superintendents and the actual use of the units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a premise is a rental unit and to ascertain the real substance of the transaction under section 202 of the Act, and that these were findings of fact not reviewable on appeal.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to a unit leased under a commercial lease agreement.

The tenant used the unit primarily as a living space and incidentally for creating artwork.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably applied section 202 of the Act to ascertain the true nature of the tenancy, and that the Board's factual findings regarding the predominant use of the unit were not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitration decision that upheld his termination for fabricating a workplace violence allegation.

The application was brought over two years after the arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two preliminary grounds: the applicant lacked standing to bring the application individually as the union had exclusive representation rights and no exceptional circumstances applied, and the application was barred by unreasonable and unexplained delay.

The insurer appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The insurer argued that the insured's claim for long-term disability benefits was statute-barred because the two-year limitation period began when benefits were initially denied.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the internal appeal process was concluded, as it was not legally appropriate for the insured to commence an action while the appeal was ongoing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that ordered it to return all tenant deposits for garage door fobs to the respondent landlord based on unjust enrichment, and set off that amount against unpaid monthly fees owed to the appellant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in applying unjust enrichment because the tripartite agreement provided a juristic reason for the appellant to retain the deposits.

The court also corrected an error in the calculation of pre-judgment interest on the unpaid monthly fees, resulting in a net judgment in favour of the appellant.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that an incident where the respondent was bumped by a car door and subsequently punched in the face constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The parties had agreed to a written preliminary issue hearing based on a specific question.

However, the LAT adjudicator unilaterally restated the issue in the final decision without notifying the parties.

The Divisional Court held that this breached procedural fairness, as the appellant was denied the opportunity to know the case to be met and to present relevant evidence and arguments.

The appeal was allowed, the decision quashed, and the matter remitted to a different adjudicator.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenants, who resided in rent-geared-to-income community housing, had stopped paying rent while disputing a retroactive rent increase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's jurisdiction did not extend to calculating rent-geared-to-income, and that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness during the hearing.

The court ordered vacant possession of the unit.

The Monitor of the Canadian Debtors of Nortel Networks sought court approval for two environmental property settlement agreements concerning the Belleville and Brockville properties under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

These settlements aimed to resolve significant environmental liabilities, crystallize claims, and facilitate further distributions to creditors.

The court granted the motion, approving both the MECP Belleville Settlement and the Brockville Settlement, finding them fair, reasonable, beneficial to stakeholders, and consistent with the CCAA's objectives, including the provision of third-party releases.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her claim for attendant care and housekeeping benefits was statute-barred.

The applicant argued that the limitation period should not begin to run until she was found to be catastrophically impaired, relying on the doctrine of discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is a 'hard' limitation period triggered by the insurer's clear and unequivocal refusal to pay the benefit, regardless of whether the claimant is aware they have a claim at that time.

The defendant, Mark Stephen Kent, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for failure to comply with a prior costs order of McEwen J. totaling $35,403.80 and for delayed prosecution of the action.

The plaintiff, Clifford Todd Monaghan, had not paid the costs and offered an explanation of waiting for a Small Claims Court judgment.

The court found clear failure to comply with the order and inordinate, inexcusable delay, giving rise to a presumption of prejudice.

While dismissal was justified, the court opted for a stay of the action, conditional on the plaintiff paying the outstanding costs within two months.

If not paid, the defendant could move in writing for dismissal.

Costs of the current motion were fixed at $10,000 on a substantial indemnity basis against the plaintiff.

The applicant, a provincially incorporated company that installs and maintains fibre optic cable for telecommunications networks, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying its bargaining unit under provincial law.

The applicant argued its operations were vital, essential, or integral to federally regulated telecommunications companies and thus subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the applicant's work was highly integrated with and integral to the ongoing operations of federal telecommunications undertakings.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the OLRB decision was quashed.

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.