Greer J.

The self-represented applicant moved for leave to appeal an interim order that found she had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting her former counsel's advice and conduct in issue in her motion to set aside an estate settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant leave.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing his motion to add himself, in his capacity as Estate Trustee, as a plaintiff in his personal action against the respondent.

The Master had ruled the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in calculating the limitation period.

The court held that the limitation period was extended because the parties had engaged in mediation and because the respondent had delayed renouncing her right to act as Estate Trustee, which prevented the appellant from being appointed earlier.

Following a motion for leave to appeal and a successful motion by the plaintiffs to exclude fresh evidence, the court determined the issue of costs.

The parties agreed that costs of the motion for leave should be left to the panel hearing the appeal.

For the motion to exclude fresh evidence, the court rejected the defendants' argument that a separate motion was unnecessary, noting the defendants attempted to introduce the same documents previously refused.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs fixed at $765.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to remove the plaintiff's litigation guardian, the court received written submissions on costs.

The successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $7,826.83 inclusive of GST and disbursements, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the history and circumstances of the litigation.

The Attorney General for Canada sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order certifying a class action against the Crown regarding allegedly defective medical implants.

The Crown argued that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for regulatory negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions on the matter and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's application of the Anns test for duty of care.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision that dismissed their motion to amend their statement of defence and granted the respondent's cross-motion for judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred by hearing the final cross-motion before the interlocutory motion to amend.

The Court also held that the Master applied the incorrect test under Rule 26 by reversing the onus, as the opposing party must prove non-compensable prejudice to defeat a motion to amend.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeals against the City's official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the redevelopment of a hospital site.

The moving party opposed the demolition of the old hospital building, raising environmental, affordable housing, and heritage preservation concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any of the raised issues.

Following a successful appeal by the condominium corporation that dismissed the respondent's Small Claims Court action regarding a special assessment, the court determined the costs of the proceedings.

The appellant sought over $52,000 in costs on a claim worth $5,350.29.

The court rejected the application of the condominium declaration for substantial indemnity costs because the respondent had sold her unit before suing.

The court also held that Rule 49.10 does not apply to offers made pending an appeal.

Emphasizing proportionality, the court limited the Small Claims Court costs to the statutory 15% maximum plus disbursements, and fixed the appeal costs at $3,000 plus disbursements, for a total award of $7,452.73.

The applicant sought a stay of a Board order revoking its liquor licence pending an appeal.

The Board had revoked the licence after finding the applicant allowed drug sales and drunkenness on the premises.

The applicant argued it should have been allowed to introduce fresh evidence at the Board hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to meet the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, particularly failing to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to set aside service outside Ontario and permanently stay the action on the basis that Ontario was not the forum conveniens.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for a Master's decision on forum conveniens is correctness, as it is vital to the final disposition of the lawsuit.

Applying this standard, the Court upheld the Master's finding that Ontario was the appropriate forum, noting the plaintiff's central location and the lack of evidence showing another jurisdiction was clearly more appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding damages to a former unit owner.

The owner had paid a special assessment for major repairs before selling her unit.

When the repair costs came in lower than expected, the board transferred the surplus to the reserve fund rather than issuing refunds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the board acted reasonably and in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998, which requires common surpluses to be applied to future expenses or paid into the reserve fund.

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 defendant doctor moved for leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions dismissing his motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.

The motions judge had allowed the plaintiff to file a late affidavit without complying with language requirements and had dismissed the summary judgment motion despite the plaintiff failing to file any expert medical report.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders and that the proposed appeal involved matters of importance, including the necessity of expert evidence in medical malpractice cases and the application of the limitation period.

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 leave to appeal an interim order that imposed strict terms on an adjournment, including paying $20,000 into court as security for damages and filing an undertaking.

The applicants argued the motions judge erred in exercising his discretion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that the issues were strictly between the parties and not of general importance.

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.