Helen A. Rady

The defendant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the plaintiff employee damages for wrongful dismissal, mental distress, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court upheld the wrongful dismissal damages, finding no error in the motion judge's calculation of the notice period.

However, the court set aside the $7,500 award for mental distress, finding that the employer acted in good faith and there was insufficient evidence of compensable mental distress.

The court also allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial costs from $35,000 to $10,000, noting the motion judge failed to properly consider proportionality and the unreasonableness of the plaintiff's bill of costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the College of Nurses' refusal to annul her first unsuccessful attempt at the Canadian Registered Nurse Examination.

The appellant argued that her mental and emotional state, caused by her mother's death and medication side effects, prevented her from fully appreciating her inability to write the exam.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant could and should have assessed her circumstances before the examination was reasonable.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application following a summary trial, in which he claimed damages against a non-profit housing shelter and its manager for negligence, breach of Toronto Shelter Standards, and violations of ss. 2, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims.

The court also found no unfairness in the conduct of the trial.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The appellant landlord appealed a summary judgment order requiring it to return the balance of the respondent tenant's security deposit.

The motions judge had found that the landlord was barred from claiming Additional Rent adjustments for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 lease years because it failed to provide notice within 180 days of its financial year end, as required by the lease.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's interpretation of the lease, finding it consistent with the language and the six-month limitation on tenants seeking readjustment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision which held that the respondent insured was entitled to interest at 2% per month on overdue statutory accident benefits.

The insured's accident occurred after the New Regulation (O. Reg. 34/10) came into effect, but her policy was issued before that date.

The Divisional Court found the Delegate's decision unreasonable, holding that the clear wording of the New Regulation applied to all accidents occurring on or after September 1, 2010, rebutting any presumption against interference with vested rights.

The application for judicial review was granted and the Delegate's decision was quashed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision that dismissed its application for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had refused to allow the union to amend an incorrect application filing date, finding that the amendment would cause material prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's discretionary decision to relieve from compliance with its rules was reasonable and entitled to deference, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs $3.565 million for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver, the court determined several post-trial legal issues.

The court denied the third-party bartender's request to amend his pleadings to add a limitation defence due to prejudice.

The court found the bartender was an independent contractor or volunteer, meaning the host was not vicariously liable for his negligence, but the host could seek contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs could access their OPCF 44R underinsured motorist coverage without having sued the bartender, as his insurance was not 'available' to them within the meaning of the endorsement.

Finally, the court ordered the assignment of future statutory accident benefits to prevent double recovery.

The respondent sought an interim order for the return of her six-year-old child, Patrick, to her care or, alternatively, shared parenting time.

The applicant resisted the relief, failing to file material or cooperate with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) as previously ordered.

The court found the applicant's explanation for non-compliance unpersuasive and noted the child's need for stability.

On an interim basis, the court ordered week-about shared parenting until a scheduled settlement conference and re-issued an order for OCL involvement, expecting the applicant to complete the necessary paperwork promptly.

The parties, involved in two cross-applications concerning alleged competitive conduct, returned to court seeking further documentary production.

The court noted their non-compliance with previous procedural orders from Justice Raikes, including timelines for discovery and setting the matter down for trial.

Emphasizing the principle of proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rules 1.04(1.1) and 29.2, the court declined to order the wide-ranging production sought.

The judge highlighted the excessive volume of material already produced and the relatively low value of the dispute, stressing that discovery must be focused, relevant, and proportionate.

The parties were advised to refine their requests after examinations for discovery and a Rule 37.15 order.

This endorsement provides preliminary procedural orders following arguments on "second production motions" in two related court files involving cross-applications.

The court directed the parties to immediately seek an order under Rule 37.15 for the appointment of a single judge to hear all motions, make procedural orders, and give directions as necessary.

The court also ordered that parties are not required to provide a chart of requests or a table of concordance, and that counsel must prepare and exchange Bills of Costs in advance of every court appearance, providing copies to their clients.

The Creditor sought payment of $19,293.49 from the Debtor, comprising a lump sum payment ordered in prior matrimonial litigation and alleged spousal support arrears.

The lump sum payment was a condition precedent for the relinquishment of spousal support claims, but it was not made.

The court found that the Creditor's right to claim spousal support survived due to the unfulfilled condition.

However, the court dismissed the application for the specific spousal support amount, stating that entitlement and quantum needed to be established in Unified Family Court.

The Debtor was ordered to pay $7,817.49 on account of the original lump sum.

The plaintiff moved for an order to abridge the time for service of three expert reports and to grant leave to call them as experts, also requesting a trial adjournment for the defendants to obtain responding reports.

The defendants opposed, citing prejudice.

The court balanced the plaintiff's disadvantage in not leading expert evidence against the defendants' inability to respond and the case's long history of delays, including previous adjournments and late service of documents by the plaintiff.

Justice Rady, referencing a prior decision by Justice Grace, found that the prejudice to the defendants was irremediable without an adjournment, which had already been refused.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed, and leave to call the expert reports was denied.

The applicants sought to rescind a conditional foundation building permit issued by the City of London to the respondent numbered company and Mr. Lavie, arguing non-compliance with applicable law regarding site plan approval and zero-metre setbacks.

The court dismissed the application, finding that site plan approval was not a prerequisite for a conditional permit issued under s. 8(3) of the Building Code Act, unlike a regular permit under s. 8(2).

The court also determined that the zero-metre setback complied with the City's Downtown Area (DA) zoning bylaw, specifically for the DA2 zone.

The decision emphasized that a Chief Building Official's decision, when compliant with statutory requirements, is entitled to deference and should not be influenced by broader land use planning or public policy considerations.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert toxicological opinion evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels and signs of intoxication during a trial.

The expert was deemed qualified to testify on BAC levels and their physiological effects based on assumptions.

However, the court excluded the expert's opinion on whether an individual exhibited signs of intoxication or others' ability to detect impairment, holding that these are matters of common knowledge for a jury and do not require expert testimony.

The court also cautioned against experts developing hypotheses and sifting through evidence to support them.

At the opening of trial, the plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to plead vicarious liability against the defendant Thomas Bolton for the negligence of the third party, Steve Coulthard.

The Bolton Estate resisted, arguing prejudice due to Mr. Bolton's death and the lateness of the amendment.

The court permitted the amendment, finding it did not raise a new cause of action but rather attached a legal label to existing facts, consistent with Rule 26.01, and that the defence would have understood the basis of liability.

Following the dismissal of the tenants' appeals from Landlord and Tenant Board orders terminating their tenancies, the successful landlord sought costs.

The landlord claimed $6,257.85 from each appellant on a partial indemnity basis.

Taking into account the appellants' expectations and the significant overlap of work on each appeal, the Divisional Court fixed costs at $3,500 against each tenant individually, all inclusive.

This personal injury action involved a motion by the plaintiffs to appoint a litigation guardian for Elisabeth Reddecopp, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident and found to lack capacity to instruct counsel.

The defendants brought a cross-motion seeking a further capacity assessment, cross-examination of the initial assessor, and other relief.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, appointing Elisabeth's father, Heinrich, as litigation guardian, finding him presumptively appropriate and without an adverse interest that would preclude his appointment.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, ruling it lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 to order a further capacity assessment, and that there was no basis to compel cross-examination of the initial assessor or order a second assessment given its comprehensiveness and lack of bias.

The appellant, a commercial rabbit farmer, appealed a trial decision dismissing his counterclaim that contaminated feed supplied by the respondent caused mass mortality in his rabbit herd.

The trial judge had preferred the evidence of the respondent's expert over the appellant's expert regarding the sensitivity of rabbits to mycotoxins.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment and weighing of the expert evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board dismissing a request for an Official Plan amendment to sever a two-acre portion of its golf course property containing a house.

The house was originally built as an accessory use to the golf course.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB's decision was reasonable, agreeing that it would be contrary to planning policy to allow a party to build a home as an accessory use and later sever it for residential use when it is no longer needed for the golf course.

This family law proceeding addressed issues of custody, access, child support, arrears, equalization of net family property, and the children's passports following the parties' separation.

The applicant sought sole custody, table child support, and the ability to obtain passports for the children, while the respondent sought joint custody, reduced child support due to hardship, and opposed passports.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding that joint custody was unworkable due to the parents' inability to communicate effectively.

The respondent was granted liberal access with a structured schedule.

The court ordered the respondent to pay table child support, rejecting his undue hardship claim, and fixed child support arrears at a reduced amount.

An equalization payment was also ordered, and the applicant was permitted to obtain passports for the children.