Helen A. Rady

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.