James D. Carnwath

The applicants sought judicial review of a racing commission decision dismissing their appeal of a stewards' ruling.

They argued the commission breached natural justice by failing to adequately address evidence that another jockey's whip caught in their horse's tail, causing interference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the commission's reasons were adequate, the evidence was considered, and the factual findings were not patently unreasonable.

The complainant alleged that a funeral home lost his late wife's diamond earrings.

The Complaints Committee of the Board of Funeral Services declined to refer the matter to discipline and stated it lacked jurisdiction to order compensation.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the funeral home to pay $4,800 in compensation.

The Registrar appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that neither the Complaints Committee nor the Tribunal had statutory authority under the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act to award monetary compensation to a complainant.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decisions not to refer his racial discrimination complaint against his employer to the Human Rights Tribunal, and to uphold that decision upon reconsideration.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness during the investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission met the requirements of procedural fairness and that its decisions were not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Tribunal of the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario.

The Appeal Tribunal had determined that the Competence Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make compensatory orders, an issue not raised by the parties, without giving the applicant an opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that the Appeal Tribunal breached the duty of fairness by deciding matters not before it without allowing the parties to respond.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a differently constituted panel for a new hearing.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenant a $10,000 rent abatement for harassment and interference with parking.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of harassment, noting the landlord's threats to report the tenant to social assistance.

However, the court found no evidence to support the finding of parking interference, as the tenant chose to park in an unassigned spot.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the rent abatement was reduced to $6,500.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' request for judicial review of a decision denying them admission to a master's program, the successful university sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court weighed the factors under Rule 57, noting the complexity of the issues, the unfounded allegations of bias, and the applicants' failure to mitigate.

The court awarded the university partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,000 for fees and $8,665.31 for disbursements, payable equally by the three applicants.

A dissenting judge would have awarded a lower quantum of costs with an extended time to pay.

The plaintiffs in two related medical malpractice actions sought leave to appeal an order removing their counsel of record.

The removal was ordered because plaintiffs' counsel retained an expert witness, a former hospital employee, who had previously been involved in the hospital's defence and possessed confidential, privileged information.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single narrow issue: whether the plaintiffs should be afforded an opportunity to propose precautionary steps to mitigate prejudice before the drastic remedy of removing counsel is imposed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, the respondent Ministry of Natural Resources sought partial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount of $8,034.09 to be reasonable and ordered it payable forthwith.

On consent, the respondent County of Haldimand was awarded costs of $2,500.

The applicant withdrew its application for judicial review after its related appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court found that the judicial review application was unnecessary and constituted re-litigation of issues already decided by multiple bodies.

The court awarded the Crown $10,000 in fees and $4,000 in disbursements on a substantial indemnity scale.

The Toronto Police Services Board was successful in its application to quash an order issued by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Board sought costs against the respondent, James Rankin.

The Divisional Court rejected the respondent's arguments that he was successful on the majority of issues and that the matter was novel and of public interest.

Costs were awarded to the Board on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $15,000.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a union grievance regarding teacher lunch breaks.

The school board had directed teachers to receive students in their classrooms five minutes before the start of afternoon classes, which the union argued violated the collective agreement's provision for a lunch period free of assigned tasks.

The arbitrator found that the school board had voluntarily fettered its discretion under O. Reg. 298 by agreeing to the collective agreement provision.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the regulation and collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of their motion to enforce a settlement under Rule 49.09.

The motion judge had found he could not determine whether a settlement had been reached.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on the application of Rule 49.09 and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, as he properly applied a Rule 20 summary judgment approach to the first step of the settlement enforcement analysis.

The applicants sought an order directing the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry to state a case to the Divisional Court regarding whether the proposed evidence of two witnesses fell within the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.

The evidence concerned a sexual assault reported contemporaneously, which the applicants argued did not constitute 'historical abuse' under the mandate.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner had not exceeded his jurisdiction and that the evidence was reasonably relevant to the Inquiry's mandate to examine the institutional response to allegations of abuse.

A dissenting opinion would have granted the application.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision allowing a subdivision application to proceed to a hearing.

The central issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction under the Planning Act despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act requiring a development permit before any development decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to address the mandatory language of the amended legislation.

The Court further held that the respondent did not have a vested right to a hearing before the Board.

The applicants sought judicial review of Laurentian University's decision to deny them admission to graduate studies.

The Divisional Court held that the decision was discretionary and did not attract certiorari or mandamus.

Applying the factors from Khan v. University of Ottawa, the court found that only minimal procedural fairness was required in this context.

The court concluded there was no flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice and dismissed the application, rejecting allegations of bias or retaliation.

The appellants appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects.

They argued they were denied a fair hearing because the independent legal counsel retained to advise the Committee effectively took over the conduct of the hearing.

The Divisional Court agreed, noting numerous instances where the Committee's counsel interrupted the appellants' counsel, purported to speak for the Committee, and engaged in heated arguments.

The findings of guilt were set aside and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Municipal Board regarding the revocation of a licence, arguing the Board erred in law by failing to understand that the revocation was tainted by prior allegedly unlawful actions by the Ministry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision and noting that the Board's conclusion that the appellant was not in compliance with licence conditions was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed.

The appellants appealed a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding they sexually harassed an employee and retaliated against her and her stepfather for making a human rights complaint.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings of liability, concluding that the admission of similar fact evidence was reasonable and the Tribunal's reasons, though sparse, met the minimum standard to support the findings of discrimination.

However, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons inadequate to support the compensation and public interest remedies ordered.

The Court substituted its own awards, reducing the special damages and mental anguish awards for both complainants, and set aside the public interest orders.

A journalist requested electronic data from the police board's databases, asking that names be replaced with randomly-generated unique numbers.

The board refused, arguing this would require the creation of a new record.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the board to issue access decisions.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the Commissioner's order, finding that the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider whether the requested record could be produced by means 'normally used by the institution' as required by section 2(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario's Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court found that the College denied the applicant procedural fairness and due process by failing to properly investigate the complaint and by wrongly striking the reports of her chosen experts.

The application was granted, the rulings were quashed, and the matter was remitted to a newly composed Discipline Committee.