Hackland R.S.J.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee placed on administrative leave without pay due to bail restrictions following an arrest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied established arbitral jurisprudence requiring employers to attempt to identify an appropriate temporary position for employees precluded from performing normal duties due to pending criminal charges.

The court rejected the employer's argument that this principle was inapplicable because its actions were in response to bail restrictions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had concluded that the applicant's employment was terminated for willful disobedience, which disentitled him to termination pay under O. Reg. 288/01 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal.

The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant $10,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST.

The court also granted the parties leave to provide written submissions on whether the trial judge's award of costs of the trial should be varied.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement regarding costs.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements plus HST.

The costs were directed to be paid to Legal Aid Ontario.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order striking her two Superior Court proceedings, which claimed damages of $8.2 million and $100,000.

The Divisional Court found that an appeal of a final order in these amounts falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the appeals were transferred to the Court of Appeal.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal, the successful respondents sought costs of $31,804.58.

The appellants submitted that costs should be fixed at $20,000.

The Divisional Court agreed with the appellants, fixing costs at $20,000 inclusive, noting that this amount was fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the amount at issue.

The appellant solicitor appealed an order requiring him to personally pay $10,000 in costs under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motions judge had awarded costs against the solicitor largely due to allegations of unprofessional conduct and conducting the litigation in an unreasonable manner.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge failed to apply the 'extreme caution' principle and did not establish how the solicitor's conduct caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily.

The court emphasized that Rule 57.07 is compensatory, not punitive, and should not be used to sanction professional misconduct that does not result in wasted costs.

The Ministry of the Attorney General sought judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner decisions ordering the disclosure of police records.

The Ministry argued the records were exempt under s. 19(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because copies of the records were contained in the Crown brief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that s. 19(b) does not exempt records in the possession of the police that were created during an investigation merely because copies later became part of the Crown brief.