James D. Carnwath

The moving party brought a motion before the Divisional Court to appeal a Superior Court judge's refusal to grant leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court distinguished previous case law where leave was refused by a Divisional Court judge, noting that section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act did not apply to a Superior Court judge's refusal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application under s. 297 of the Corporations Act regarding an election irregularity at a non-profit organization.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the irregularity did not go to the heart of the electoral process or lead to a result contrary to the wishes of the majority.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicant physician sought to prevent an investigation into his competence ordered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and to force the Quality Assurance Committee to continue an assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the College's statutory duty to protect the public.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict and the trial judge's rulings on evidence and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' objections to the jury questions, which were not raised at trial.

The court also held that the jury's findings were not perverse and that the trial judge made no error in excluding a late affidavit or admitting a signed statement and surveillance tapes.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants received a Notice of Proposal to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations.

They negotiated a consent order with the Registrar, issued by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which waived their right to a hearing and allowed automatic revocation upon breach of conditions.

The Registrar subsequently revoked their licences without a hearing.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the statutory right to a hearing under section 7 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act is for the public benefit and cannot be waived by the parties.

The consent order and subsequent revocation were declared invalid.

The applicants, chartered accountants charged with professional misconduct, brought a motion for review of an order dismissing their request to compel the respondent's Professional Conduct Committee to file a record of proceedings under section 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the committee's power to investigate and charge is not a 'statutory power of decision' as defined in the Act, and therefore section 10 does not apply.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a job posting following municipal amalgamation.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator erred in interpreting s. 33(3) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, as that section only applies after notice to bargain a first collective agreement has been given.

The court found that the incumbent was not a member of the bargaining unit and his employment was governed by his contract of employment.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a newly constituted board of arbitration.

The City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding a doctor $81,850 for injurious affection caused by subway construction near his leased offices.

The doctor cross-appealed the quantum of damages, arguing the Board erred in reducing damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in principle in the Board's assessment of reasonableness or damages.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his certificate of registration for sexual abuse.

During the hearing, the College called an expert witness who was subsequently appointed to the Discipline Committee before the panel released its reasons.

The Divisional Court found that a reasonably informed bystander would conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the panel members had to weigh the expert's evidence while she was their colleague on the Committee.

The decision of the panel was quashed as void ab initio.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of sick leave credits under a collective agreement.

The applicant attempted to introduce affidavit evidence summarizing a witness's recollection of testimony to demonstrate the arbitrator's alleged errors.

The Divisional Court refused to admit the affidavit, finding no exceptional circumstances, and concluded the arbitrator did not lose jurisdiction.

The court held that the arbitrator's decision met the standard of reasonableness and dismissed the application with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of preliminary procedural rulings made by a university Faculty Disciplinary Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the discipline proceedings had not yet been completed and there was a right of appeal to the University Appeal Committee.

The court found no evidence of corruption or bias that would justify interfering at this stage.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it liable for rent arrears and property damage under a commercial lease.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to discount damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in interpreting the lease acknowledgment or assessing the evidence of damage to the premises.

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of two orders by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of the total amounts paid by the Ministry for court-ordered legal representation of certain individuals in criminal proceedings.

The Ministry argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege and the protection of personal privacy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner was correct in determining that the aggregate fee amounts were neutral information not protected by solicitor-client privilege, and that the Commissioner's decision that the disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy was reasonable.

The tenants appealed a Tribunal decision regarding an unauthorized transfer and eviction.

They argued the Tribunal erred by failing to call a crucial witness and by failing to consider evidence that the landlord knew of the unauthorized transfer earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation to call the witness and accepting the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the landlord's knowledge.

The landlord's request to terminate the tenancy was also denied, as it was outside the scope of the appeal and an unauthorized transfer only permits eviction of the unauthorized occupant, not termination of the tenancy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the validity of a collective agreement under section 53.

The applicant argued the Board was required to declare the agreement invalid for all purposes, not just for the two certification applications before it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had jurisdiction to restrict its remedy to the applications before it and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicant restaurant association challenged the jurisdictional and constitutional validity of a City of Toronto by-law requiring restaurant operators to publicly post the results of food premises inspections (the 'DineSafe' Disclosure Program).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the city had the jurisdiction to pass the by-law under the Municipal Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The court also rejected the applicant's Charter challenges, holding that a corporation cannot invoke section 7, and that the mandatory posting of inspection notices did not infringe freedom of expression under section 2(b) because it did not force the owners to adopt the city's message or prevent them from disavowing it.

The court further held that even if section 2(b) were infringed, the by-law would be saved under section 1.

The plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident when a third party swerved to avoid an unidentified driver and collided with their vehicle.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs successfully moved to add the third party as a defendant under rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The third party appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that adding the third party as a defendant would cause significant prejudice due to the 'one percent rule' regarding unidentified motorist coverage, and that the motions judge erred in finding special circumstances.

The appellant husband appealed an order varying his child support obligations.

A previous consent order had set support below the Child Support Guidelines table amount.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstances, as the husband was no longer obligated to support the two eldest children, and increased the support for the remaining three children to the Guidelines amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence, as there were no special provisions justifying a departure from the Guidelines.

The landlord appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the termination of a residential tenancy.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's notice did not comply with s. 47(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, and the Tribunal Member erred in law by finding the landlord's Form N4 terminated the tenancy.

Instead, the Court concluded that the parties had reached an agreement to terminate the tenancy, which was finalized when the tenant delivered the keys and the landlord's representative accepted them.

The appeal was allowed in part, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The appellant executor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $75,000 in dependant's support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found the respondent was a 'spouse' who had continuously cohabited with the deceased for at least three years prior to his death, and that her evidence was sufficiently corroborated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding cohabitation or the quantum of support awarded.