Greer J.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The union had negotiated mid-term amendments to a collective agreement with Loblaws to address competition from Wal-Mart, without holding a ratification vote by the general membership.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found that the Board's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its conclusion that the union acted fairly and reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Minister of Transportation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondent $1,110,348 for the expropriation of a portion of her land.

The Minister argued the Board erred by deducting development and delay costs from the 'after value' of the remaining land, contending the compensation should be lower.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly applied the 'before and after' valuation method and properly interpreted the Expropriations Act regarding market value and injurious affection.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had rescinded orders made by a local Medical Officer of Health that prohibited smoking in several hospitality businesses.

The Board found that the Medical Officer of Health exceeded his statutory authority under section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act by issuing blanket, unit-wide orders rather than site-specific ones.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review and awarding costs to the respondent businesses.

The appellant's estate appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying reimbursement for out-of-country medical treatment.

The appellant, suffering from advanced ovarian cancer, travelled to Germany for chemotherapy and experienced a perforated bowel requiring immediate surgery.

The Board found that the bowel perforation was not 'unexpected' given her underlying condition, and thus did not qualify as an insured service under the regulations.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding it was supported by medical evidence that the complication was predictable.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, arguing that the lack of a complete recording of the hearing deprived him of natural justice and his right to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lack of a recording did not prevent the court from properly disposing of the appeal based on the tribunal's detailed findings of fact and reasons.

The court upheld the tribunal's findings that the landlord illegally entered the rental unit and substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refusing to consent to the abolition of the municipal police force unless the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) agreed to binding arbitration regarding the hiring of a specific officer.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's jurisdiction under section 40(3) of the Police Services Act is limited to ordering arbitration between a police board and a member regarding severance pay.

The Commission had no statutory authority to order the OPP to submit to arbitration regarding an officer's suitability for employment.

The condition was set aside and the Commission was directed to consent to the termination.

The applicant, a non-custodial parent, sought access to his son's medical records through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of family or marital status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to usurp the Family Court's role in determining parental access rights.

The court found no discrimination and upheld the tribunal's procedural fairness, awarding $1,000 in costs to the Commission.