Hockin

The appellant, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, appealed a decision exempting certain machinery and equipment at hydro-electric generating stations from real property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by applying the rejected 'integration test' to characterize penstocks and surge tanks as equipment rather than structures, and by finding that maintenance and safety items were used for producing electric power.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the holistic approach from Metals Alloys and Nabisco, and correctly concluded that items need not be directly involved in the transformation of water to electricity to qualify for the exemption.

The plaintiff appealed an order of a Master dismissing her action for delay following a status hearing.

The action arose from the suspension of her nursing licence, allegedly due to a flawed report by the defendant physician.

The Master had applied a rigid two-part test, finding the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Master erred in principle by failing to apply a contextual approach and by ignoring the broader litigation history, including a companion case that resolved a key issue regarding document admissibility.

The order dismissing the action was set aside.

The plaintiff appealed an order of a motions judge that set aside a Master's order declaring the defendants had waived solicitor/client privilege.

The defendants had sought to amend their statement of defence, filing an affidavit blaming their former solicitor for errors, which the Master found constituted a waiver of privilege.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge failed to apply the proper standard of review and erred by attempting to case manage the sequence of motions after confirming the Master's finding of waiver.

The Master's order was restored.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Energy Board's Demand Side Management guidelines, arguing they were improperly adopted without a hearing and were binding on parties.

The Board, supported by intervenors, brought a motion to quash the application as moot.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the guidelines were not binding, as evidenced by subsequent rate hearings where the Board departed from them and an affidavit from Board counsel.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, noting the applicant could challenge the guidelines in future rate proceedings.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they discriminated against the respondents, two Black men, by asking them for identification in a lawyers' lounge.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding no evidence of differential treatment or a causal nexus to race.

The Court held that the Tribunal improperly reversed the burden of proof by requiring the applicants to provide a non-discriminatory explanation for routine identification checks without the respondents first establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

The garnishee appealed a motion judge's order requiring it to pay 100 percent of the compensation it paid to the debtor to the creditor, until the creditor's judgment was satisfied.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that under s. 72 of the Wages Act, 80 percent of a person's wages are exempt from garnishment.

The order was varied to require the garnishee to pay 20 percent of the debtor's compensation to the creditor, while 100 percent of any non-compensation debts or shareholder distributions remained subject to garnishment.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's family law orders regarding equalization of property, spousal support, child support, and the matrimonial home, arguing errors in fact and law, as well as a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge, who assisted both self-represented parties, made no palpable or overriding errors and did not misapprehend the evidence.

The court upheld the trial judge's order for step-down spousal support based on imputed income, noting the appellant could seek recourse if her circumstances changed.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant physician appealed a four-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The suspension resulted from the appellant's failure to maintain a narcotics log, which breached an undertaking he had provided to the College following previous disciplinary concerns regarding his prescribing practices.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the penalty was within the range of reasonable outcomes, emphasizing the importance of undertakings to the self-regulatory scheme and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed.