Ground

Following the dismissal of a judicial review application regarding environmental assessment bump-up requests, the successful respondents sought costs.

The Divisional Court found that the applicants brought the proceeding in bad faith to frustrate a land exchange, constituting an abuse of process.

Consequently, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The Minister of the Environment was awarded $302,000 in fees, and the Ontario Realty Corporation was awarded $400,000 in fees.

A request to award costs personally against the principal of the applicant corporations was dismissed.

The applicant First Nations sought judicial review to quash a Notice of Completion of an Environmental Study Report regarding the transfer of the Seaton lands by the Ontario Realty Corporation.

The applicants argued the Crown breached its constitutional and statutory duties to consult them about potential aboriginal burial sites on the lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no constitutional duty to consult because the applicants had surrendered their rights to the lands under the 1923 Williams Treaties.

The court also held that the statutory consultation process under the Environmental Assessment Act was procedurally fair, noting the broad nature of the assessment and the effective involvement of the Founding First Nations Circle.

The defendant insurer appealed an order requiring it to produce its entire claims file from a prior, settled coverage action in a subsequent bad faith action brought by the plaintiff.

The motions judge had found that the defendant impliedly waived privilege by pleading good faith.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Blank v. Canada.

The Court held that litigation privilege continues in closely related subsequent litigation and that pleading good faith does not constitute a waiver.

The blanket production order was set aside, and the defendant was ordered to deliver an Affidavit of Documents individually listing the documents over which privilege is claimed.

The applicant, a deaf person, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the failure of the Building Code to require rear window captioning in movie theatres constituted discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal, finding insufficient evidence of a denial of a service and noting that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to amend legislation.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission's gate-keeping decision was not patently unreasonable, as the Tribunal cannot read in provisions to the Building Code to make it comply with the Human Rights Code.

The applicant housing cooperative brought a motion to lift the stay of enforcement of a Writ of Possession pending the respondent's appeal of the eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling evidence of a risk of serious physical harm to the cooperative or its residents that would constitute irreparable harm.

The court also found that the balance of convenience and prejudice favoured the respondent, as lifting the stay would require her to vacate her home of 25 years and potentially deprive her of statutory protections under the Co-operative Corporations Act if her appeal succeeded.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision forbidding the implementation of a finger scan system for checking employees in and out of the workplace.

The employer argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and the decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the employer had conceded jurisdiction before the arbitrator and that the arbitrator's balancing of the employer's interests against the employees' privacy interests was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the respondent in response to an application for an expedited hearing under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicant argued the affidavit was incomplete and misleading.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit addressed factual matters within the Registrar's knowledge and was not prejudicial, scandalous, or an abuse of process.

The court noted the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant or file a responding affidavit.

Sears Holdings Corporation appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding its insider bid for Sears Canada Inc. The OSC had found that Holdings failed to comply with disclosure obligations, entered into agreements that contravened the Securities Act, and engaged in abusive and coercive conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for OSC decisions interpreting its constituting statute is reasonableness simpliciter, and that the OSC's findings and remedies were reasonable.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs of $42,000 and $15,000 to $22,500 respectively.

The respondents argued the claims were excessive.

The Divisional Court considered the complexity of the Human Rights Code issues and the unusual circumstance of the Tribunal accidentally losing the record, which increased preparation time.

However, noting the similarity of interests between the two appellants and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable to the losing party, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale of $10,000 to each appellant.

Following a successful appeal regarding entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, the appellant sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $31,000 for the entire action.

The respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs of $5,000.

The Divisional Court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, noting the offers to settle did not strictly comply with Rule 49.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations, the court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs fixed at $4,500 for the motion and $6,000 for the appeal, plus disbursements.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Director under the Business Corporations Act ordering them to change their corporate names to names distinguishable from 'Unity Insurance'.

The Director found that the similarity in names caused confusion among insurers, reinsurers, and brokers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the class of persons likely to be deceived includes anyone with an interest in dealing with the corporation, not just customers.

The court also held it lacked inherent jurisdiction to order the appellants to cease using the unregistered business name 'Unity Insurance'.

The Attorney General applied for judicial review of a Consent and Capacity Board decision which held that the Board had jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of the community treatment order (CTO) provisions of the Mental Health Act.

The Divisional Court applied the Martin test and concluded that the Board's mandate involves applying facts to prescribed statutory criteria, not deciding questions of law.

Furthermore, the strict statutory timelines for Board hearings rebut any presumption of jurisdiction to hear complex Charter challenges.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the Board's decision on jurisdiction was quashed.

The appellant employee appealed a decision dismissing his motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages and ESA entitlements.

The motion judge had held that ESA standards were only enforceable through administrative procedures and were alternatives to common law damages.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that ESA entitlements can be claimed in a civil action and are not subject to mitigation, as they are statutory minimums, not damages.

The Court granted summary judgment for the outstanding balance of the appellant's ESA entitlements.

Following an appeal of a professional discipline decision where the appellant succeeded on one of twelve grounds, both parties sought costs.

The Divisional Court found that success was not evenly divided, as the appellant failed to upset the basic findings of professional misconduct against him.

The Court awarded costs to the respondent College on a partial indemnity basis, reduced to reflect the appellant's limited success, fixing the amount at $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The successful respondents sought costs of the appeal in the amount of $23,013.02 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants argued the amount was excessive and suggested $6,731.58.

The Divisional Court found the respondents' claim high given the narrow and straightforward issue on appeal.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court fixed costs at $12,000 all inclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that upheld a union grievance after the employer's consultant destroyed interview notes.

The Board found that the destruction of these documents irreparably prejudiced the union's case and prevented a fair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board did not deny natural justice by deciding the matter on a preliminary fairness issue without hearing the merits.

The Court further held that the Board had the implied statutory authority to enforce disclosure obligations by allowing the grievance.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny him a religious exemption from the requirement to have a digital photograph on his driver's licence.

He argued the requirement violated his freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, citing beliefs based on the Book of Revelations and the Second Commandment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that his objection was based on a sincere religious belief, noting inconsistencies in his practices and evidence that his true concerns were secular privacy issues.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review.

The Court found that the Board was fully cognizant of the relevant facts and legal principles, and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant denturist appealed a Discipline Committee's findings of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct, which included fabricating inadequate dentures, poor record-keeping, and secretly tape-recording a conversation with a patient.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that evidence was obtained through an unlawful warrantless search and seizure, noting the items were voluntarily supplied or in plain view.

However, because the Committee's reasons contained factual errors regarding the timing of the denture fabrication and the appellant's practices after taking remedial courses, the court remitted the matter of penalty to the Committee for reconsideration.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and time-limited spousal support.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the net payment ordered by the trial judge was under $25,000, despite the amount in dispute being much higher.

On the merits, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's property division was supported by evidence and that time-limited spousal support was appropriate given the husband's failure to rehabilitate himself and his persistent prescription drug abuse.