Herman J. Wilton-Siegel

The trustee in bankruptcy sought directions on whether $100,000 of a $275,000 motor vehicle accident settlement, allocated for 'loss of future competitive advantage', constituted property of the bankrupt under s. 67 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or income under s. 68.

The court applied a purposive approach, finding that the essential nature of the award was compensation for lost future income.

Consequently, the court held that the settlement funds were 'akin to income' and should be treated as income under s. 68 of the BIA, rather than property.

The plaintiff appealed a decision upholding a Master's refusal to strike an affidavit.

During cross-examination on the affidavit, the witness's counsel adjourned the examination so the witness could consult with another lawyer.

When cross-examination resumed, the witness refused to answer questions about the consultation, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Divisional Court held that the Master erred by placing the onus on the plaintiff to prove interference with the witness's evidence without requiring the defendants to elect whether to waive privilege or withdraw the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the decisions below set aside, and the matter remitted to the Master.

The appellant Township appealed a decision setting aside a master's order that required the respondent to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

The master's order was based on admissions made by the respondent in response to a request to admit regarding the existence of documents proving damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that using a request to admit to force a party to state whether it has documents evidencing damages is improper and a nullity.

Consequently, the respondent's admissions were also a nullity, and the appeal judge did not err in setting aside the master's order.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a decision conditionally certifying a class action against a parking management company with significantly narrower parameters than proposed.

The plaintiffs challenged the motion judge's dismissal of causes of action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, unjust enrichment, and unconscionability, as well as the imposition of a limitation period and the exclusion of punitive damages as a common issue.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order and no conflicting decisions warranting leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

The moving party, Toshiba of Canada Limited, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order denying its motion for production of the Commissioner of Competition's internal inquiry commencement memorandum and for leave to cross-examine the affiant of an ex parte order.

The ex parte order required Toshiba to produce records under section 11 of the Competition Act.

The Divisional Court held that the underlying proceeding was criminal in nature, meaning the Criminal Proceedings Rules applied, which do not provide for an appeal of an interlocutory order.

The court also rejected the argument that the motion could be treated as a civil proceeding for declaratory relief under the Charter.

Consequently, the court found it lacked jurisdiction and denied leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his claim against Tarion Warranty Corporation for second-year warranty construction deficiencies.

The appellant argued he was denied a fair hearing due to the Tribunal Member's bias and erroneous evidentiary rulings, including restricting his expert's testimony.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias and held that the Member properly exercised discretion in limiting the expert's evidence regarding Ontario Building Code standards.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing his application for judicial review of a family arbitration award.

He argued that recent amendments to the Family Law Act meant family arbitrators exercise a statutory power of decision, giving the court jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, affirming that family arbitrators derive their authority from private consensual agreements, not statute, and therefore do not exercise a statutory power of decision.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and ordering him to pay arrears, as well as a subsequent review order confirming the termination.

The tenant argued he was denied natural justice because he did not receive notice of the final hearing and therefore did not attend.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and upholding the Board's factual finding that the tenant had received notice of the hearing.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP imposing an administrative charge of $81,450 for 543 unauthorized payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the General Manager had no duty to refer the administrative charge issue to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, as the Board's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing unauthorized payments.

The Court confirmed the General Manager's authority to impose a $150 administrative charge for each unauthorized payment under the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004.

Furthermore, the Court noted it would have declined to grant the discretionary remedy of judicial review due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that partially denied her claim for compensation following the shooting death of her son.

The Board had denied her claim for mental or nervous shock and reduced her award for funeral expenses because the victim's behaviour contributed to his death.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of the legal test for mental or nervous shock or its reduction of funeral expenses under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was discriminated against due to the lack of a special diet allowance for hypoproteinemia under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Court found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding that eating additional protein from food sources is generally recognized in the Ontario medical community as an appropriate treatment for hypoproteinemia.

Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was deemed unreasonable and quashed regarding the respondent's claim for a special diet allowance for elevated protein requirements.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that she was not a tenant but a mere occupant of the rental unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot because the appellant had already been evicted.

Furthermore, the court held the Board did not err in applying the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, as the appellant occupied the premises with the permission of the actual tenant and was never an unauthorized occupant prior to the termination of the tenancy.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award dismissing its grievance for delay.

The arbitrator found that the union failed to explain a one-year delay in scheduling the resumption of the arbitration hearing, contrary to the collective agreement's requirement to expedite proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and exercise of discretion to be reasonable, and noting that the union's delay in perfecting the judicial review application also militated against granting relief.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its judicial review application pending the Ontario Energy Board's reconsideration of an earlier decision regarding the applicant's failure to sign an assignment document.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, noting that the outcome of the reconsideration could significantly impact the judicial review application.

Costs of $600 each were awarded to the intervenors.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a partially successful application for judicial review regarding the municipal reimbursement of legal expenses for city councillors.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $15,000 payable by the city, noting the lack of complexity and partial success.

The court declined to award costs against the individual councillors, and ordered the applicant to pay $5,000 in costs to one councillor who successfully opposed the relief sought against him personally.

The appellant, a former employee of a Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) member, appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) which upheld a ruling by Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS).

The OSC found that the Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) were enforceable against the appellant for conduct that occurred during his employment, despite his subsequent resignation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it reasonable for the OSC to conclude that the TSE validly adopted the UMIR and that RS had jurisdiction to discipline former employees for misconduct committed while they were employed by a TSE member.

The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, applied for judicial review of a Commissioner's report and an Order in Council removing him from office for judicial misconduct.

The misconduct involved inappropriate in-court treatment of an unrepresented litigant and out-of-court attempts to improperly influence an investigation into his conduct.

The Divisional Court found the Commissioner's recommendation for removal was reasonable given the severity of the misconduct and the need to restore public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application was dismissed, and fresh evidence of the applicant's improved health and character did not alter the outcome.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for purchasing and administering illegal, unlabelled drugs, and the subsequent penalty of a two-year suspension and $25,000 in costs.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to inadequate reasons regarding credibility findings, the admission of hearsay, and consideration of a prior racing commission decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's reasons were adequate for appellate review, the evidentiary rulings were proper, and the penalty and costs were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The Ministry applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision finding that the Ministry breached the collective agreement by failing to create and fill a single Probation Officer 3 (PO3) position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference, as a literal interpretation would have led to an unrealistic result with no sensible purpose.

The appellants appealed a judgment determining amounts payable to two law firms out of settlement funds held in trust, based on a Settlement Agreement.

The appellants argued the agreement was unfair and unreasonable under the Solicitors Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the agreement regarding the first firm, finding it fair and reasonable, but allowed the appeal regarding the second firm, remitting the issue of fairness and reasonableness of its fees to the Superior Court of Justice because the application judge failed to provide grounds for finding the fees reasonable and did not characterize the nature of the fee arrangement.