Thea Paula Herman

The Ontario Nurses Association brought a motion to review and set aside a decision of Molloy J., which struck out an affidavit containing correspondence between an arbitration chair and the employer's nominee.

The underlying judicial review application by the Board of Health alleged a denial of natural justice because the arbitration board did not discuss the evidence before the chair issued a proposed decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, agreeing with Molloy J. that the correspondence was unnecessary to introduce as evidence because the facts it sought to establish were already addressed in the chair's reasons and were not disputed.

The moving parties brought a motion to vary or set aside a decision of Swinton J., which had dismissed their motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

Swinton J. had dismissed the motion on the basis of res judicata, as Jennings J. had previously dismissed a motion seeking the same relief.

The Divisional Court agreed with Swinton J. that she was bound by the decision of Jennings J., and that the proper recourse was to appeal or move to vary the decision of Jennings J., rather than bringing another motion before a different judge.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The applicant employee sought a stay of a first contract arbitration ordered by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, pending a judicial review of the Board's and Minister of Labour's decisions.

The applicant argued that the Board and Minister breached the employees' rights to natural justice and procedural fairness by not providing notice or an opportunity to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the mere imposition of a collective agreement pending the judicial review would not exacerbate the alleged harm.

The appellants appealed six Small Claims Court decisions assessing damages on default judgments for payday loans.

The Small Claims Court judge awarded partial judgment in each case but provided no reasons for reducing the amounts claimed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, holding that the complete absence of reasons precluded meaningful appellate review.

The matters were remitted to a different judge for a new assessment of damages, as the appellate court lacked sufficient information to determine the appropriate amounts.

The appellant payday lender appealed a Small Claims Court judgment assessing damages after the respondent defaulted on a $450 loan.

The trial judge found the annualized interest rate of 1,303% violated the Criminal Code, rejected a $500 claim for liquidated damages as a penalty, and reduced the 59% post-default interest rate to 18% under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the payday loan exemption to the Criminal Code was not yet in force at the time of the agreement, the lender failed to prove the $500 fee was a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and the transaction was harsh and unconscionable.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding it $536.55 plus costs in a dispute over returned fabric.

The appellant alleged the trial judge made seven errors, including failing to address fraudulent misrepresentation, miscalculating the amount of fabric returned, and denying interpreter fees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact, noting the trial judge was in the best position to assess credibility and the evidence.

The Crown moved to strike portions of two affidavits filed by the Ontario Propane Association in support of its judicial review application challenging O. Reg. 440/08.

The Crown argued the impugned sections contained improper legal argument and irrelevant exhibits.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, applying the general principle that issues of admissibility and relevance of affidavit evidence should be determined by the panel hearing the judicial review application, rather than on an interlocutory basis.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against his financial institution, arguing the bank had a duty to determine whether funds in his account were exempt from garnishment before forwarding them to the Sheriff.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no authority for such an obligation.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the appellant's delay in taking action, and concluded there was no denial of the right to present evidence or cross-examine.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment, refusing to admit his version of a contract, and refusing to admit hearsay witness statements.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in denying the adjournment due to a lack of medical evidence, properly excluded the illegible and altered contract documents, and reasonably exercised his discretion under section 27(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to exclude the hearsay statements.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding a 14-day suspension of its commercial motor vehicle operator's registration, pending appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the Tribunal improperly focused on past events rather than current safety.

The court also found the appellant would suffer irreparable harm to its business contracts and reputation, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside the registrar's dismissal of his appeal, extend the time to perfect the appeal, and for an order allowing re-entry into the premises.

The underlying appeal was from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the appeal was an attempt to relitigate factual findings rather than raising a question of law, and noting the tenant's failure to take any steps to perfect the appeal for over a year.

The balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The City of Toronto appealed a trial judge's decision regarding liability for a slip and fall in a municipal laneway.

The City argued the trial judge erred in assessing the standard of maintenance, failing to apply the strict notice period for sidewalks under the Municipal Act, and failing to find contributory negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law, and upheld the trial judge's costs award.