Harriet E. Sachs

The appellant appealed a support order, arguing that the motions judge should have directed a trial of an issue under Rule 15(13) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that neither party sought to cross-examine on affidavits, the motions judge was not asked to direct a trial, and the judge had discretion not to do so.

Applying the standard of review for support orders, the court found no error in principle or significant misapprehension of evidence.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $10,000.

The appellant moved to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, consisting of three affidavits prepared to comply with a previous order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavits were not before the original judge and could not be used to support the submission that a trial of an issue should have been ordered.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring that the applicant and a predecessor school board were a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act and its regulations precluded the Board from making such a declaration and limited the geographic scope of the unions' bargaining rights.

The Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The majority found that the Board's interpretation of the interplay between the statutes, which preserved its discretion under s. 1(4), was not clearly irrational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry that allowed the Commission to hear evidence from alleged victims of historical sexual abuse.

The applicant argued that hearing such evidence would convert the inquiry into a substitute police investigation and exceed its mandate by requiring findings of civil or criminal responsibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner clearly understood his mandate to assess the institutional response rather than determine individual liability, and that he appropriately balanced the need for the evidence against the applicant's reputational interests.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the interpretation of property class regulations.

The moving party argued the ARB ignored the clear wording of the regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision, as the ARB properly applied a teleological approach to statutory interpretation consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.