Herman J. Wilton-Siegel

The applicant sought judicial review of a Case Management Master's decision dismissing a motion for her recusal based on a reasonable apprehension of bias in a construction lien proceeding.

The Divisional Court first determined it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application despite the statutory prohibition on appeals from interlocutory orders under the Construction Lien Act, as the allegation went to fundamental fairness.

On the merits, the court applied the correctness standard and found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Master's procedural orders and expressions of frustration did not demonstrate bias to a reasonably informed bystander.

The application was dismissed.

The Divisional Court issued an addendum to its initial endorsement to correct factual errors in paragraph 4 regarding bypass compensation and stranded transmission connection facilities.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The Tribunal had found that an employee was subjected to a poisoned work environment based on sex and was terminated contrary to the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal only ordered the inoperative corporate employer to pay damages, declining to hold the individual managers and owners jointly and severally liable.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's failure to provide a rational basis for not imposing personal liability on the managers, who had failed to address the poisoned environment and had terminated the employee, was unreasonable.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the apportionment of joint and several liability.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order compelling her to undergo a further psychiatric assessment under s. 79(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act.

She had previously been found incapable and was under guardianship, but brought an application to terminate the guardianship supported by new assessments indicating she was now capable.

The responding party successfully moved for a further assessment, which the motion judge granted without reasons.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order as it may not have appropriately balanced the individual's autonomy against the state's duty to protect the vulnerable, and noting the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The appellant warranty corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering it to undertake remedial work on a new home's radiant floor heating system.

The Tribunal found the system was a major structural defect and ordered repairs estimated at $245,000.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the $100,000 statutory cap on compensation for major structural defects under Regulation 892.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a rehearing on the issue of remedy alone.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding customs brokerage fees charged on international shipments.

The core issue for the leave motion was whether the motion judge erred in certifying as a common issue whether the brokerage services were 'unsolicited services' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, without considering the consignees' knowledge or consent.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that consumer knowledge is irrelevant under section 13 of the Act, and noting that the issue is a matter of public importance.

The applicants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order quashing their application for judicial review of ongoing regulatory disciplinary proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, agreeing with the motion judge that the application for judicial review was premature because the issues should be determined at first instance by the regulatory hearing panel.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent on consent.

The appellants appealed a procedural decision of the Ontario Energy Board regarding their application to declare bypass compensation provisions of the Transmission System Code ultra vires.

The Board had determined the application was not a standalone application but was linked to an earlier Leave to Construct decision, and gave the appellants three procedural options to proceed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was interlocutory and discretionary, and raised no true question of law or jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to remove the respondents' lawyers of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The appellant argued that a 'near client' relationship was established through a telephone call and an email sharing information among franchisees defending against claims by a third-party franchisor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the shared information was used for its intended purpose and did not establish a near client relationship.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his application for review of a refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

The Board had refused to extend the 30-day time limit for filing the application under s. 116(5) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the Board's decision and subsequent reconsideration decisions were reasonable.

The applicant cottagers association sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to grant a pit licence to the respondent landowner under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The licence was issued based on a municipal confirmation that the pit was a legal non-conforming use.

The Divisional Court found that the confirmation was based on misinformation, as there was no evidence the property was used as a pit prior to the relevant zoning by-laws.

The Court held the standard of review was correctness and set aside the Minister's decision, referring the matter back for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission for being out of time.

The Tribunal found the applicant knew of the alleged discriminatory acts by 1994, despite his claim of discovering them in 2010, and thus the delay was not in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice in the Tribunal's use of a written hearing for a jurisdictional issue, and holding that the Tribunal's decisions on timeliness and reconsideration were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision to take no further action on his complaint against a psychiatrist.

The applicant argued that HPARB should have held an oral hearing rather than a written review, alleging a failure to accommodate his hearing impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably exercised its discretion to proceed in writing after attempts to accommodate the applicant's hearing impairment at an oral hearing were unsuccessful, and the applicant failed to show good reason why a written hearing was inappropriate.

A creditor of a bankrupt taxi company was authorized to pursue proceedings alleging that the transfer of several taxi dispatch telephone numbers to related parties constituted a fraudulent preference, fraudulent conveyance, or transfer at undervalue under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and related provincial statutes.

The court held that the transfer arose from the exercise of a pre-existing secured note granting a right to acquire the assets upon default.

Claims under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act preference provisions, the Assignments and Preferences Act, and the Fraudulent Conveyances Act failed because the relevant intent was assessed at the time the security was granted and insolvency or fraudulent intent was not proven.

However, the court found that the transaction constituted a transfer at undervalue under s. 96(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Judgment was granted against two respondents jointly and severally for the difference between the value of the telephone-number goodwill and the consideration received.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer terminating its ability to bill the public drug program due to alleged fraudulent and unsubstantiated claims.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because it was not given sufficient time to provide evidence addressing the discrepancies.

The Divisional Court held that, given the severe economic consequences to the applicant's business, the duty of fairness required granting the applicant a short additional period to submit supporting evidence.

The application was allowed in part, and the applicant was granted an extension to make further submissions while a stay of the termination remained in place.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel upholding a finding of professional misconduct and a six-month suspension.

The misconduct arose from the appellant's breach of a bail condition prohibiting him from practicing criminal law without supervision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Law Society's jurisdiction, the application of the civil standard of proof, the assessment of credibility, or the rejection of arguments based on res judicata and abuse of process.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Financial Services Commission of Ontario decision finding that the respondent was injured in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent was injured while attempting a headstand on a 'stripper pole' inside a mobile party bus.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the decision, finding it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to conclude that, given the specific nature of the vehicle, the headstand constituted an ordinary use of the vehicle and did not break the chain of causation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Board decision refusing to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.

The Registrar sought revocation because the respondent's sole officer and director was actively involved in the Hell's Angels.

The Registrar argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct 'reasonable grounds for belief' standard and properly assessed all pertinent factors regarding the operation of the licensed establishment.

The applicant trustee in bankruptcy sought a declaration of entitlement to settlement funds held by a solicitor.

The funds resulted from a fraudulent conveyance action commenced by a judgment creditor against the bankrupt and his wife after the assignment in bankruptcy, without leave of the court.

The court held that the action was subject to the stay of proceedings under s. 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and that the settlement funds represented the proceeds of the bankrupt's interest in the property.

The trustee was granted the balance of the funds after accounting for a valid solicitor's lien.

The applicant, the former president and CEO of the respondent company, sought a declaration that the company's management information circular was not properly authorized and contained material misrepresentations regarding his departure.

He argued the circular falsely stated he 'stepped down' instead of being terminated without cause, and omitted his potential $1 million severance claim.

The court found the circular was validly authorized through retroactive ratification.

While the court agreed the disclosure was not entirely forthright, it dismissed the application because the applicant failed to prove the alleged misrepresentations were material to a reasonable shareholder voting on the election of directors.