Ian V.B. Nordheimer

The applicants, Saugeen First Nation and Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to issue a limestone quarry license to the respondent proponent.

The applicants argued the Crown failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate their Aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Divisional Court found that while the duty to consult was triggered and assessed at the middle of the spectrum, the Crown failed to discharge this duty by repeatedly changing its consultation process, failing to provide agreed-upon capacity funding for expert reviews, and prematurely issuing the license.

The application was allowed, the license was set aside, and the matter was remitted for adequate consultation.

The applicants, two cancer researchers, sought judicial review of two decisions by the respondent hospital network regarding findings of research misconduct.

The first decision upheld a reconsidered sanction suspending their research activities after an earlier court decision remitted the matter.

The second decision permanently closed their laboratory following a second investigation committee's finding of material non-compliance with accepted standards due to image manipulation and falsification in published papers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions and sanctions reasonable, the reasons adequate, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order denying their application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from implementing random drug and alcohol testing pending a grievance arbitration.

The respondent argued the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the order was final, not interlocutory.

The court agreed, finding that because the injunction was sought by way of an application, the dismissal of that application finally determined the proceeding.

Consequently, the order was final and any appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

A reporter requested the names, billing amounts, and specialties of the top 100 physicians billing OHIP.

The Ministry refused to disclose the names, but the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the information was not 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ontario Medical Association and affected physicians sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Adjudicator's conclusion that OHIP payments revealed professional rather than personal information was reasonable.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering eviction for breaching a prior conditional order.

The prior order granted relief from eviction on the condition that the tenant not exhibit conduct substantially interfering with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment, such as making profane comments.

The Board found the tenant breached this condition by swearing at the superintendent and subsequently yelling at and insulting the superintendent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and the tenant raised no questions of law.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which had set aside a Hearing Panel's 18-month suspension and substituted a penalty of licence revocation for professional misconduct.

The Appeal Panel had also overturned the dismissal of two particulars of misconduct, finding the appellant had misled investigators and filed false reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appeal Panel's decisions on both the penalty and the findings of misconduct were reasonable and entitled to a high degree of deference.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision dismissing, in part, their motion for summary judgment in a solicitor's negligence action.

The defendants argued the motion judge failed to apply the 'but for' causation test and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflict in principle with other cases and agreeing with the motion judge that a factual dispute regarding when the loss arose required a trial.

The court also found the issue was not of such importance to warrant leave.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, which dismissed his appeal after he failed the Assessment of Clinical Skills Examination for the third time.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to inadequate reasons and the lack of an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeals Committee provided adequate reasons addressing the applicant's specific concerns and that the appeal process did not require an oral hearing under the circumstances.

The Director of the Independent Health Facilities Program appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had found that the Director lacked jurisdiction under s. 20.1(2)(c) of the Independent Health Facilities Act to amend the respondent's licence to eliminate mammography and fluoroscopy services because the respondent had never commenced providing them, and thus could not have 'ceased' to provide them.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's literal interpretation of 'ceased' was unreasonable and ignored the statutory context and purpose, which is to allow the Director to control the provision of services.

The Director's decision to amend the licence was reinstated.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been terminated by her employer, and an arbitrator upheld the termination after a five-day hearing.

The Board found the union did not act arbitrarily in refusing to seek judicial review of the arbitrator's decision.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The moving party sought to set aside or vary an order that dismissed his motion for leave to appeal.

The court found that the motion was effectively an appeal of the refusal to grant leave, for which there is no right of appeal unless jurisdiction was mistakenly declined.

Finding no such error, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing her claim under Rule 2.1.01(1) to the Divisional Court.

The defendants requested the appeal be dismissed under the same rule.

The court quashed the appeal on its own motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the damages claimed exceeded the $50,000 limit for Divisional Court appeals under section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The proper route of appeal was to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of the New Democratic Party's internal decision to reject his candidacy for the party's leadership.

The court first determined that it had jurisdiction to review the decision, finding that the selection of a major political party's leader has a sufficiently broad public impact to bring it within the realm of public law.

However, applying a reasonableness standard, the court upheld the National Director's decision to reject the applicant, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the party was entitled to broad discretion in vetting its leadership candidates.

The plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court order that dismissed its claim for an unpaid credit card debt.

The motion judge had dismissed the claim on her own initiative, without notice or submissions, on the basis that it was barred by the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the judge failed to follow the mandatory notice and submission requirements under Rule 12.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

The matter was remitted back to the Small Claims Court for trial.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision striking out his statement of claim with leave to amend and staying the proceeding pending related litigation.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, noting that pleadings motions rarely warrant appellate review.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a substantial indemnity basis due to the moving party making unfounded and serious allegations of improper conduct against opposing counsel.

Two co-accused, charged with first-degree murder, sought an order permitting their joint representation by a single counsel, Ms. von Achten, following a prior order removing her as counsel for one accused due to conflict.

The court considered the accused's right to counsel of choice, the potential for tactical disadvantages, and the public interest.

Despite acknowledging potential future conflicts and the risk of proceeding unrepresented, the accused, having received independent legal advice, were adamant about their choice.

The court granted the application, emphasizing the accused's constitutional right to choose counsel, provided they confirm their understanding of the risks on the record.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to disqualify the applicant's lawyers and seal the motion record.

The motion judge had found that the moving parties waived confidentiality by placing the purportedly confidential material in the public motion record.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion on waiver of privilege.

The appellants built an addition to their home without a building permit.

After years of litigation, the City obtained an order under the Building Code Act authorizing an inspection of the addition.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the inspection would violate the section 7 Charter rights of the elderly parents living in the home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the inspection would endanger the parents' lives and noting that the City was fulfilling its statutory duty to ensure public safety.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of out-of-country payment for medical procedures she underwent in Georgia.

The appellant had declined treatment options in Ontario, including a referral to a leading specialist, and instead sought surgery in the United States.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision reasonable, as the appellant failed to establish that it was necessary to travel outside of Canada to avoid a delay in treatment that would result in death or medically significant irreversible tissue damage.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that terminated their tenancy and ordered them to vacate the premises due to rent arrears.

The tenants argued the Board made factual errors, demonstrated bias, and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no basis to interfere with the Board's calculation of arrears.