Ian Roland

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging the defendants conspired to acquire a property by fraud.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The plaintiff argued its interest in the property, registered under the Personal Property Security Act, had priority over a subsequent mortgage registered under the Land Titles Act, and that the mortgage was void under the Planning Act for failing to include abutting lands.

The court found that PPSA registration does not provide notice to a subsequent mortgagee of real property, and the plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the abutting lands.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the moving defendants.

The Toronto Police Association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that a twice-daily reporting requirement for suspended police officers was outside the scope of arbitral review.

The arbitrator had concluded the requirement was an operational matter within the exclusive authority of the Chief of Police.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, holding that the reporting requirement for suspended officers is a working condition subject to the collective agreement and the supervisory powers of the Police Services Board.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the matter remitted for a decision on the merits.

The applicants, family members of individuals whose deaths were investigated by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), sought a declaration that police officers involved in SIU investigations are not entitled to legal assistance in preparing their notes.

The application judge dismissed the application on grounds of standing, justiciability, and mootness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the applicants had public interest standing and the issues were justiciable and not moot.

Exercising its jurisdiction to decide the substantive issues, the Court held that the Police Services Act and the SIU Regulation do not permit police officers to have a lawyer vet or assist in the preparation of their notes, though they may obtain basic legal advice regarding their rights and duties provided it does not delay note completion.

The respondents moved to strike or quash portions of the appellants' Notice of Appeal, specifically a request for a declaration and a ground of appeal relating to justiciability and standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, deferring the jurisdictional issue to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellants' cross-motion to have the appeal case-managed was granted, with costs of the motion awarded to the appellants.

The appellant appealed a $100 costs order made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario for late notification of a settlement.

The Divisional Court found the costs award unreasonable because the Committee made a factual error regarding disclosure, failed to consider the College's shared responsibility for the delay, and provided no reasons for departing from the parties' joint submission that no costs should be awarded.

The appeal was allowed and the costs order was set aside.

Seneca College brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order dismissing its application to dismiss the union's judicial review for undue delay.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge did not err in exercising his discretion to allow the judicial review to proceed despite a 19-month delay, as there was no actual prejudice to the college.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent college brought a motion to dismiss the union's application for judicial review on the grounds of undue delay.

The union had delayed perfecting the application for approximately nineteen months, citing difficulties assembling the record, a strike, and counsel workload.

The court applied the three-part test for undue delay, considering the length of delay, the explanation, and prejudice.

Although the delay was substantial and the explanation regarding counsel workload was generally insufficient, the court dismissed the motion because there was no actual prejudice to the college and no ongoing turmoil in the workplace.

The applicants, parents of children at Arthur District High School, sought judicial review of the Upper Grand District School Board's decision to close the school.

They argued the Board failed to comply with statutory duties and its own accommodation review policy, thereby denying the community meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had considered numerous alternatives, provided necessary information, and afforded the community a fair opportunity to participate in the consultation process.