50 total
Arbitrator's decision on instructional minutes quashed due to fundamental misapprehension of the grievance and evidence.
The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decisions allowing a union grievance regarding the calculation of instructional minutes under a collective agreement.
The dispute centered on whether 'early bells' at certain schools required students to enter before the published start time, thereby exceeding the 300-minute instructional day cap.
The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decisions, finding that the arbitrator fundamentally misapprehended the nature of the grievance and the evidence, and unreasonably awarded compensation without proof that teachers worked additional minutes or performed different duties.
The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.
Judicial review of police officer's dismissal denied; no duty to accommodate without evidence of disability.
The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct after he assaulted four officers.
He argued the Commission failed to consider the duty to accommodate his alleged disabilities, including alcohol addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that his conditions rendered him unable to perform his essential duties, and concluded the penalty of dismissal was reasonable.
University promotion denial quashed due to reasonable apprehension of bias by the participating Dean.
The applicant, a pediatric anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of a university committee's decision denying his promotion to Associate Professor.
The denial was based on a prior finding of sexual harassment, which had resulted in probation rather than the dismissal recommended by the Dean.
Because the promotion was denied, the applicant lost his academic medical license.
The Divisional Court quashed the committee's decision, finding a breach of procedural fairness.
The court held that the Dean's active participation at every level of the promotion process, after having previously investigated the harassment complaint and recommended the applicant's dismissal, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Appeal of order dismissing motion to vary support dismissed; no palpable and overriding error found.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary a consent order for child and spousal support.
The motions judge had found no material change in circumstances, noting the appellant was deliberately underemployed and maintained a comfortable lifestyle financed by credit, despite claiming no income.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's findings of fact or application of the law.
Appeal from Board's decision to terminate periodic criminal injury compensation payments dismissed.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that reduced and ultimately terminated his periodic monthly payments.
The appellant had been receiving compensation for injuries sustained when he intervened in a motor vehicle accident involving an intoxicated driver.
The Board terminated the payments after 14 years, noting the appellant's receipt of other income replacement benefits, lack of retraining efforts, and the impact of a pre-existing injury.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's exercise of its discretion to vary the compensation order under section 25 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.
Judicial review of arbitration award dismissed; arbitrator reasonably found sick leave benefits vested during employment.
The applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted a former employee sick leave benefits for a period after his fixed-term employment contract had expired.
The arbitrator found that the employee's entitlement to the benefits had vested while he was still employed, bridging the gap to his long-term disability benefits.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was transparent, rational, and justified.
Judicial review of HRTO decision dismissed; tribunal's dismissal of discrimination claim was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging employment discrimination based on race and place of origin.
The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was entirely reasonable, as the Vice-Chair had thoroughly reviewed the evidence, assessed credibility, and provided cogent reasons for preferring the respondent's evidence.
The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.
Judicial review dismissed; arbitrator reasonably found medical notes insufficient to prove sick leave entitlement.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the employer's refusal to pay a grievor for sick days and holidays.
The employer had rejected the grievor's medical notes after a supervisor overheard a rumour that the grievor planned to call in sick and manipulate her blood pressure to obtain a note.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably admitted the rumour evidence not for its truth, but to explain why the employer requested further medical information.
The court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that the union failed to meet its onus of proving illness due to the insufficiency of the medical notes provided.
Application for judicial review dismissed as the administrative tribunal was functus officio after issuing its final decision.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board.
The applicant had complained about the Children's Aid Society's failure to respond to his request to correct records and facilitate access to his children.
The Board ordered the CAS to comply with complaint review procedures, which the CAS subsequently did.
When the applicant attempted to complain further about the CAS's response, the Board closed its file.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Board was functus officio after issuing its final decision and had no jurisdiction to hear further complaints on the matter.
Divisional Court sets aside fresh injunction and upholds dissolution of decade-old consent injunction due to delay.
The parties were involved in a long-standing dealership agreement that deteriorated over time.
The plaintiff originally obtained a consent interlocutory injunction preventing the defendant from terminating the agreement, which remained in place for nearly ten years without the matter proceeding to trial.
The defendant successfully moved to dissolve the injunction due to inordinate delay, but the plaintiff subsequently obtained a fresh interim injunction from a different judge after receiving a new termination notice.
On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dissolution of the original injunction, finding no reversible error.
However, the court allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the fresh injunction, concluding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors and that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the hostile business relationship.
Summary judgment granted dismissing false imprisonment claim due to statutory immunity for enforcing court orders.
The respondent sued the Attorney General of Canada for false imprisonment after being held in custody at a federal penitentiary pursuant to an order to produce.
The appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing it was protected by statutory immunity, but the motion judge dismissed the motion.
On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment, holding that correctional authorities are immune from civil liability under section 142 of the Courts of Justice Act and section 8 of the Public Authorities Protection Act when acting in good faith in accordance with a court order.
Appeal of trial judgment for breach of equipment purchase contract dismissed; personal liability upheld.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages and costs to the respondents for breach of a contract to purchase bakery equipment.
The trial judge found the appellants waived conditions in the offer to purchase by signing a lease, did not repudiate the offer, and that the individual appellant was personally liable.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or mixed fact and law.
The court also upheld the costs award, finding it was within the trial judge's discretion and not disproportionate.
Successful self-represented appellant awarded $2,500 in costs for disbursements.
Following an appeal, the successful self-represented appellant sought costs for disbursements, including transcripts and copying exhibits.
The respondent failed to file costs submissions.
The Divisional Court fixed costs at $2,500 all-inclusive, payable upon the settlement of all claims or the conclusion of the trial.
Appeal of order quashing Small Claims Court appeal dismissed; forum selection clause upheld.
The appellant appealed an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that quashed her appeal from a Small Claims Court decision and ordered her to pay security for costs.
The underlying dispute involved losses sustained on an online poker website operated by the respondent, which was governed by an end user licence agreement containing an exclusive forum selection clause for the Isle of Man.
The Divisional Court panel found no palpable and overriding error in the single judge's conclusions that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and that security for costs was warranted.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal allowed and new hearing ordered due to procedural fairness denials by the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The appellant landlord appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding he gave a bad faith notice of termination for landlord's own use and ordering him to pay compensation to the respondent tenants.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board Member denied procedural fairness by refusing to permit the appellant to call witnesses regarding his reasons for termination and by allowing the respondents to file evidence after the hearing concluded.
The matter was returned to the Board for a new hearing.
Leave to appeal temporary child protection order denied as conditions on mother's custody were reasonable.
The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought leave to appeal a temporary order that granted care and custody of five children to the respondent mother, subject to conditions granting the Society access to health care and education information.
The Society argued the order improperly divided custody.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the conditions were reasonable and authorized by the Child and Family Services Act.
Furthermore, the court held the proposed appeal did not involve matters of public importance.
Appeal dismissed; discoverability principle and special circumstances justified adding vehicle owner after limitation period expired.
The plaintiff was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident.
The police report and the defendant's initial pleadings identified the defendant driver as the owner of the vehicle.
After the two-year limitation period expired, the plaintiff obtained a vehicle ownership search revealing a leasing company was the actual owner.
The plaintiff successfully moved to add the leasing company as a defendant.
The third-party insurer appealed.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the discoverability principle, the plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered the true owner earlier.
Alternatively, special circumstances justified adding the defendant despite the expired limitation period.
Appeal of motion to dismiss for delay dismissed; motions judge criticized for failing to provide reasons.
The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.
The motions judge provided no reasons, requiring the Divisional Court to hear the matter de novo.
The action, commenced in 1998 for false arrest, saw little activity until 2008 when the plaintiff served an expert report.
The court found the delay was not intentional or contumelious, as the plaintiff had difficulty obtaining an expert willing to testify against police.
The defendants failed to show prejudice or a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.
The appeal was dismissed, though the court strongly criticized the motions judge's failure to provide reasons.
Spousal support quantum upheld but duration time-limited due to short length of marriage.
The appellant husband appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month for five years and thereafter until the respondent wife obtained employment.
The parties had a short relationship of three-and-a-half years with no children.
The Divisional Court upheld the quantum of support, finding no palpable and overriding error, but found the indeterminate duration to be an error in principle given the short marriage.
The appeal was allowed in part to impose a firm termination date for spousal support.
Police officer's termination for cocaine-related misconduct upheld; accommodation of addiction would cause undue hardship.
A police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) upholding his termination.
The officer had pleaded guilty to eight disciplinary offences related to purchasing and stealing cocaine while on duty, which he attributed to a cocaine addiction.
He argued the police service had a duty to accommodate his disability.
The Divisional Court held that while the OCCPS must be correct in its legal interpretation of the duty to accommodate, its application of that duty to the penalty was reviewable on a reasonableness standard.
The Court found the OCCPS reasonably concluded that accommodating the officer would cause undue hardship given the egregious nature of his misconduct and the destruction of his usefulness as a police officer.
