Hugh R. McLean

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents damages for oppression.

The trial judge found that the parties had entered into an oral agreement and a shareholders' agreement for the respondents to receive a 20 percent equity share in a new car dealership, which the appellants breached by excluding the respondents and obtaining the dealership through a different corporate entity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or extricable error of law in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the existence of the agreements, the breach, the respondents' standing as complainants under the Business Corporations Act, and the finding of oppression.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that upheld findings of professional misconduct relating to five separate client matters over a five-year period.

The misconduct included breaching a Small Claims Court production order, failing to serve a client, breaching confidentiality by sending a termination letter containing legal advice to a client's psychiatrist, delaying the deposit of trust funds, misleading the court about an unpaid costs order, and improperly proposing a mutual withdrawal of Law Society complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law in the Appeal Panel's decision, and upheld the costs award against the appellant.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion under Rule 49 to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the defendants regarding a dispute over the construction of a house.

The defendants' solicitor had accepted an offer to settle for $80,000, but the defendants subsequently refused to sign the release because they did not want to release their Tarion new home warranty claims.

The court found that a binding agreement was reached by solicitors with apparent authority and declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the agreement based on a mistake between the defendants and their solicitor.

The motion was granted, and judgment was issued for $80,000 plus costs.

The appellant, Mohamed Faisal, appealed his conviction for driving over 0.80, arguing a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The trial judge found a s. 10(b) breach but admitted the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the Grant factors.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, specifically regarding the consideration of the police officer's problematic testimony and the overall assessment of whether admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's holistic consideration of the evidence and the Grant factors, and affirming the deference owed to the trial judge's discretion in s. 24(2) assessments.

This addendum to a January 2022 judgment corrects calculation errors in the original judgment regarding a construction lien claim.

Specifically, the contract price for Boston Pizza was corrected, and two agreed-upon chargebacks were included, changing the judgment amount for Green View Heating & Cooling Inc. to $57,771.41 for that portion of the claim.

The addendum also addresses the matter of costs, awarding the plaintiff $57,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis, apportioned between the Homewood and Boston Pizza claims.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought two actions against the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices relating to HVAC duct work on two construction projects (a Homewood hotel and a Boston Pizza restaurant).

The parties had oral agreements based on construction drawings but disputed the scope of work, extras, and back charges.

The court assessed the value of the work completed, allowed certain extras, and deducted amounts for incomplete work, back charges, and damages caused by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded a total of $107,206.41 across both projects, plus $57,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sought an emergency interlocutory injunction against the defendants, who were involved in a protest causing severe noise disturbance in downtown Ottawa.

The defendants' counsel requested an adjournment, citing insufficient time to review extensive materials and prepare a proper defense.

The court, acknowledging the national importance of the matter and the need for a complete record to craft an enforceable *in persona* injunction, granted the adjournment until February 7, 2022.

The judge emphasized the inherent difficulty of framing an enforceable injunction against a large, fluid group of unnamed parties and the equitable requirement for certainty in such orders.

The plaintiff, a resident of downtown Ottawa, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants and other participants in the 'Freedom Convoy' protest from sounding vehicle horns.

The plaintiff alleged the constant noise constituted a private nuisance causing irreparable harm, including potential permanent hearing damage.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm based on medical evidence, and that the balance of convenience favoured the residents' right to quiet over the protestors' right to express themselves via horn honking.

An interim injunction was granted for 10 days.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his human rights complaint against his former employer, coworkers, and a workplace investigator.

The HRTO had dismissed the complaint against the employer and certain coworkers under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a concurrent civil action based on the same facts.

The HRTO also dismissed the complaint against the workplace investigator, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, following Vavilov, and found that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and procedurally fair.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a tobacco farmer, sought judicial review of a Ministry of Finance decision refusing to issue him Dealer and Producer Registration Certificates for the 2021 calendar year.

The Ministry based its refusal on the applicant's history of disruptive and obstructionist behaviour toward inspectors, concluding there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not comply with the Tobacco Tax Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness and that the Ministry's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Boswell J. dated September 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a competing union to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent construction company.

The Board had determined that the applicant's existing collective agreement did not cover carpenters and carpenters' apprentices, effectively ending the applicant's intervention in the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and correct based on the plain meaning of the agreement's recognition and jurisdiction clauses.

The plaintiff, a national human resources association, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, a provincial association that withdrew its membership, for unpaid membership levies and exam fees.

The defendant admitted the exam fees but disputed the membership levies, arguing the budget was improperly passed, and claimed a set-off for its share of the plaintiff's accumulated Members' Equity.

The court found the levies were lawfully passed but reduced the amount by 30% based on actual corporate needs.

The court dismissed the defendant's claim for set-off, finding that neither legal nor equitable set-off applied because the plaintiff's Board of Directors had not taken action to allocate or distribute the Members' Equity.

Capcorp Planning (2003) Inc. appealed an assessment of Ontario Sales Tax and a penalty levied by the Minister of Revenue for non-remittance of tax on premiums paid for its extended health care plans.

The central issue was whether these plans, identified as "unfunded benefits plans" under the Retail Sales Tax Act, were exempt from tax because the risks covered could not "otherwise be obtained by taking out a contract of insurance." The court found that the plans were indeed unfunded benefits plans and, based on uncontradicted evidence that purchasers could not obtain alternative health insurance due to pre-existing conditions or other impediments, concluded that the amounts paid were not taxable.

Consequently, the assessment was quashed.

The court also rejected the respondent's arguments regarding the penalty rationale and the due diligence defence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that denied his claim for a bonus payment following his termination.

The motion judge had found that the appellant had no contractual entitlement to a bonus, as the bonus plan was purely discretionary and subjective.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings, concluding that the employment offer only provided eligibility to participate in the bonus plan, not an entitlement.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's alternative calculation of the bonus quantum or the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding Statutory Accident Benefits without first appealing to the Director's Delegate as required by s. 283(1) of the Insurance Act.

After a previous stay, the applicant's late appeal to the Director's Delegate was dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the current application for judicial review, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's decision directly and that the applicant must instead seek judicial review of the Director's Delegate's final decision.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming an earlier order that corrected a typographical error in a property assessment.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order under section 134 of the Courts of Justice Act to provide a corrected base rate for the assessment and realty taxes.

The Divisional Court granted the requested order to give effect to the parties' agreement and avoid extending the period of miscalculation.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision revoking his registration as a gaming supplier under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The revocation followed the discovery of counterfeit DVDs and unmarked cigarettes at his convenience store, and his subsequent disregard for an immediate suspension order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tribunal's reasons were adequate and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the appellant's pattern of dishonesty and lack of respect for the law.