Gravely

The plaintiffs appealed a jury award of $750 in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury by failing to instruct them that the defendant bears the onus of proving the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

The Divisional Court found that the omission was a significant error on a critical legal issue that left the jury with a misapprehension of the applicable legal principles.

Concluding that the error caused a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.

The respondent employee accepted a severance package and signed a full and final release of all claims against the applicant employers.

She subsequently filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the release did not bar her complaint because the employers had not complied with the Act prior to the release.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that parties may contract out of the Pay Equity Act when settling a claim, and the unequivocal release barred the employee's complaint.

Following an appeal, the parties were unable to agree on costs and provided written submissions.

The successful respondent sought over $50,000 in costs.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court fixed the respondent's costs for the application for leave to appeal at $2,000 and for the appeal at $15,000, plus disbursements of $1,439.36.

The appellants, members of a housing co-operative, appealed a judgment terminating their occupancy rights and ordering payment of post-bankruptcy arrears.

They argued the judgment violated the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act by identifying pre-bankruptcy arrears, and that they were denied procedural fairness when the application judge refused an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judgment did not violate the BIA as it explicitly stayed collection of pre-bankruptcy arrears, and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the adjournment given the mounting arrears and prejudice to the co-operative.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a four-story parking garage from the commercial property class to the residential property class.

The parking garage was used exclusively by residents of adjacent condominium towers under long-term license agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property was 'used for residential purposes' within the meaning of section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98, as the ultimate use of the property was residential parking appurtenant to living accommodations, regardless of ownership.

The appellant applied for compensation after a child under 12 injured another child with a slingshot.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissed the claim, finding no crime of violence occurred because the child lacked criminal intent.

On appeal, the appellant argued that s. 16(2) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act deemed the child to have intent, overriding s. 13 of the Criminal Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 13 creates a blanket prohibition against criminal accountability for children under 12, which s. 16(2) does not displace.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reversing a two-week suspension imposed on an employee for fighting.

The arbitrator found that the employee had not engaged in a fight, preferring the employee's viva voce evidence over written statements filed by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's factual findings were not patently unreasonable and that the arbitrator correctly held the employer to the specific grounds assigned for discipline.

The plaintiff sued a doctor and an assessment company for bad faith, intentional interference with economic relations, and negligence arising from an independent medical examination report that led to the termination of her statutory accident benefits.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the report was protected by witness immunity and absolute privilege, and that they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the scope of the duty of care in the context of the statutory scheme and whether immunity applied to allegations of intentional injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the plaintiff's claims raised important policy issues and genuine issues of fact that required a full trial.

The applicants sought judicial review of planning applications filed by a land developer for a residential subdivision near proposed airport lands.

The applicants argued the applications were nullities under the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004, which imposed a development freeze on lands outside urban settlement areas.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the lands were not designated as an urban settlement area when the Act came into effect.

The court declared the applications and subsequent municipal decisions nullities, and prohibited the Ontario Municipal Board from hearing appeals related to the applications, as it lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been discharged for misconduct.

The employee was subject to a Last Chance Agreement requiring immediate discharge for any further misconduct.

The arbitrator found the employee committed misconduct but ruled the discharge void because the employer took several days to investigate and obtain legal advice before formally terminating him.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of 'immediately discharged' was patently unreasonable, as it failed to allow the employer a reasonable time to investigate and resulted in an absurd outcome without any prejudice to the employee.

The application was granted, the award quashed, and the grievance denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Inquiry Officer's report under the Expropriations Act, alleging breaches of procedural fairness including the denial of an adjournment request.

The respondent challenged the Court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction because the Inquiry Officer's report is an important step affecting the property owner's interests.

However, the Court dismissed the application, finding the Inquiry Officer provided detailed reasons for denying the adjournment and did not breach the duty of procedural fairness during the hearing.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it suffered no damages after its loader was damaged by the defendant.

The trial judge had characterized the appellant's payments for the damaged machine as lease costs rather than contributions toward a purchase under a conditional sales contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellant was forced to incur the expense of renting an alternative loader while waiting for the insurance company to write off the original machine, and awarded damages for the rental costs.

The applicants sought costs against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario following successful applications for judicial review.

The Divisional Court awarded costs of $20,000 on a partial indemnity scale against the Tribunal.

The court noted that while costs against a statutory tribunal are rare, the Tribunal's fully adversarial stance and unsuccessful arguments on all issues justified the award.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) that upheld the Investment Dealers Association of Canada's (IDA) disciplinary actions against them.

The IDA had fined the appellants and terminated their membership for failing to provide documents during an investigation into alleged principal trading in an error account.

The appellants argued the IDA lacked jurisdiction, its by-laws violated the Charter, and the investigation was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the IDA is not a government entity subject to the Charter, its investigative powers are valid under the regulatory scheme, and its disciplinary process and penalties were reasonable.

The Children's Aid Society applied for judicial review of a Director's decision under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act to review the Society's refusal to place Crown ward children with extended family members for adoption.

The Divisional Court quashed the application, holding that the Director's decision to conduct a review was not a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act because it did not decide or prescribe anyone's legal rights.

In the alternative, the majority found the Director's decision to be reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly interpret and apply all three subparagraphs of section 4(1) of the Act.

The court held that the Tribunal improperly stopped its analysis after finding no 'substantial' impairment under subparagraph (a), without considering the impact of the impairment on activities of daily living under subparagraph (b).

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The applicants, an employer and its manager, settled a sexual harassment complaint with the complainant.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission then referred the complaint solely against another respondent to the Human Rights Tribunal.

Despite the applicants not being parties to the hearing, the Tribunal made adverse findings of fact and liability against them.

The Divisional Court granted judicial review, holding that the Tribunal breached natural justice and exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating matters not referred to it and making findings against non-parties who had settled.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to amend its decision.

The applicants sought judicial review to avoid testifying before the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, which was dismissed.

The respondent Commissioner and intervenor City of Toronto sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the litigation raised an important constitutional question of public interest.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding the applications were brought to avoid testifying, not in the public interest.

The Court awarded fixed costs of $25,000 to the Commissioner and $10,000 to the City of Toronto, payable jointly and severally by the applicants.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The appellant had provided expensive, unproven alternative treatments to vulnerable, terminally ill cancer patients, misrepresenting the efficacy of the treatments and charging excessive fees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's findings on credibility, misrepresentation, conflict of interest, and excessive fees.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, finding it appropriate given the appellant's exploitation of vulnerable patients.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff sued for breach of a commercial lease after the defendants sold the property without honouring the plaintiff's right of first refusal.

The defendants argued the action was barred by a one-year contractual limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that whether the discoverability rule applies to a contractual limitation period is a genuine issue for trial, as is the factual question of when the plaintiff ought reasonably to have discovered the breach.