James D. Carnwath

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to appreciate the medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal considered all evidence, correctly applied s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, and properly determined that the appellant did not have a substantial impairment.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating his tenancy and ordering him to pay rent arrears.

The tenant argued that he had a private agreement with the landlord's property manager to freeze his rent indefinitely, and that the landlord was estopped from resiling from this agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 2(1) of the Tenant Protection Act prohibits landlords and tenants from contracting out of the Act's provisions, even where the agreement benefits the tenant.

The court also held that the doctrine of estoppel cannot override a clear statutory prohibition.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal of a refusal to certify a class proceeding regarding pension plan amendments, the respondents sought costs.

The appellants argued that no costs should be awarded, relying on the public interest and novel point of law provisions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Divisional Court found no special circumstances to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court awarded costs to the respondents, including disbursements for a responding report on a fresh evidence motion.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the care of his child, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on a doctor's findings about emotional harm and placed undue weight on his economic circumstances.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence of the appellant's improved employment and housing but dismissed the appeal.

The court found the trial judge properly assessed the risk of emotional harm based on the appellant's history of inappropriate disciplinary measures and dysfunctional parenting.

The court also held that the trial judge appropriately considered the appellant's financial ability to provide a secure home as part of the mandated best interests analysis under the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred by failing to make findings of fact regarding whether a letter was mailed to or received by the insured, and by incorrectly characterizing the insurer-insured relationship as fiduciary rather than contractual.

The Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine these issues under the Crop Insurance Act.

The application for judicial review was granted, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted to the Tribunal.

The appellant appealed a 28-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario for permitting dancers to consume drugs in a smoking room.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that whether the appellant had exclusive control of the room was an unappealable question of fact, and that the Board correctly interpreted 'premises' under s. 45(2) of O.Reg 719/90 to include the smoking room.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The Children's Aid Society applied for judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry that allowed public disclosure of CAS documents containing information reported to the Child Abuse Register.

The Commissioner had reasoned that because the documents came from CAS files rather than the Register itself, they were not protected by the confidentiality provision in s. 75(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the ruling, holding that a literal interpretation would lead to an absurdity and frustrate the legislative intent.

The court found that the information in the CAS files and the information protected by the Register's confidentiality provision are co-extensive and must be protected from public disclosure.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision calculating his pre-accident earnings based on his actual hourly wage of $20.00 rather than the $25.20 rate mandated by his union's collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied a patent unreasonableness standard of review, given the Tribunal's specialized expertise and the strong privative clause.

The Court held that the Tribunal's task under the pre-1997 Workers' Compensation Act was to determine actual earnings, not what ought to have been paid, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the collective agreement.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants, real estate agents, appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent for their failure to include a financing condition in a second offer to purchase a residential property.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding that the respondent suffered no damage as a result of the appellants' omission.

Even if the condition had been included, the conditional period would have expired before the bank withdrew its financing approval, leaving the respondent in the same position.

The cross-appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the appellants' conduct.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to continue, subject to conditions, the restaurant licences of four establishments with histories of public health violations.

The City argued the decisions were patently unreasonable and that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by misunderstanding its jurisdiction, failing to provide adequate reasons, and interfering in the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were supported by the evidence and that the hearings were conducted fairly without any breach of natural justice.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, arguing a conflict between sections 47(7) and 64(1)(a) of O. Reg. 222/98 concerning new medical evidence.

The Divisional Court found no conflict, holding that the Tribunal may only consider new medical evidence relating to the appellant's condition at the effective date of the Director's decision.

The appeal was allowed on consent and referred back to a differently constituted Tribunal for a rehearing, with no costs awarded.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment and brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding a lack of diligent search and that the evidence would not be conclusive.

The court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the respondents were unaware the appellants were operating an independent business, given the level of trust and infrequency of visits.

The appellant taxi company appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent driver $7,500 in punitive damages and $31,500 in substantial indemnity costs after terminating his independent contractor agreement.

The trial judge found the termination was motivated by a perception that the driver was attempting to unionize.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the violation of the Labour Relations Act constituted an independent actionable wrong supporting punitive damages.

The respondent's cross-appeal for aggravated damages and increased costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of specific information in a record.

The applicant argued that disclosure would cause competitive harm and reduce incentives to submit comprehensive proposals in future tenders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commissioner's conclusions reasonable, as there was an absence of detailed and convincing evidence to support the allegations of competitive harm.

The tenants appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal awarding them $2,000 after the landlord disposed of their possessions following an eviction.

The tenants sought $30,000 and argued the Tribunal erred by failing to give reasons for the quantum of damages and for not allowing them to proceed in court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the failure to give reasons is an error of law, and set aside the damages award, allowing the tenants to elect whether to proceed before the Tribunal or a court.

The appellants appealed the decision of the motion judge refusing to certify their proposed class proceedings against the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission regarding amendments to its pension plan.

The appellants alleged the pension plan was an irrevocable trust and the amendments constituted a breach of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the motion judge made no errors of law, no palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that her conclusions on mixed fact and law regarding common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiffs were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal denying an abatement of rent for an allegedly illegal entry by the landlord.

The landlord had provided a notice of entry specifying a nine-hour window for a smoke detector inspection, and the Tribunal found the tenant had consented to the entry.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a common sense reading of s. 21(2) of the Tenant Protection Act requires the notice to specify a time of entry, not a nine-hour period.

The Court further held that the notice provisions cannot be waived by consent.

The tenant was awarded a $1,000 rent abatement and costs.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring that the applicant and a predecessor school board were a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act and its regulations precluded the Board from making such a declaration and limited the geographic scope of the unions' bargaining rights.

The Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The majority found that the Board's interpretation of the interplay between the statutes, which preserved its discretion under s. 1(4), was not clearly irrational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Apotex Inc. sought judicial review of regulations enacted by the Ontario government that reduced the reimbursement price of generic prescription drugs to 50% of brand-name drugs.

Apotex argued the government failed to meet its statutory obligations for public consultation and consideration under Bill 102, and breached procedural fairness based on legitimate expectations.

The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association intervened.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the government met the notice and consultation requirements, the Lieutenant Governor in Council did not exceed its jurisdiction in altering the proposed regulations, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not apply to purely legislative functions.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the Grievance Settlement Board to reopen her grievance file and set aside a settlement agreement she signed in 2001.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the applicant lacked standing before the Board, as only the union and employer are parties to the collective agreement.

Furthermore, the Court held it had no jurisdiction to quash the settlement, noting the applicant had already exhausted her remedies regarding the union's duty of fair representation before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.