James C. Kent

The vehicle owner brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing multiple civil actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by her 17‑year‑old son while impaired.

The central issue was whether the son had the owner's implied consent to possess and operate the vehicle, engaging owner liability principles.

The court held that the issue of implied consent could properly be determined on summary judgment where the evidentiary record was complete and no responding party adduced evidence.

Accepting the son's consistent discovery evidence that he did not believe he had permission and had taken the vehicle without consent, the court found no implied consent on a balance of probabilities.

The actions against the vehicle owner were dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued their mother and maternal grandparents for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging they failed to protect them from childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by their uncles.

The plaintiffs also alleged their mother physically abused them.

The court dismissed the claims regarding the sexual abuse, finding insufficient evidence that the mother or grandparents knew or ought to have known about the abuse at the time.

However, the court found the mother liable for breach of fiduciary duty due to repeated physical abuse and awarded each plaintiff $35,000 in damages.

Following a 21‑day personal injury trial concerning municipal liability for road conditions and signage, the successful plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $1,045,000.

The court considered the complexity of the litigation, the extensive expert evidence, and the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements claimed.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay rather than fully reflective of the successful party’s expenditures, the court concluded that the amounts claimed exceeded reasonable expectations.

Significant reductions were made to both fees and disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $406,000 in fees and $200,000 in disbursements, plus applicable taxes.

Motion concerning determination of a payor’s income for the purpose of calculating ongoing child support.

The court relied on the payor’s 2012 Notice of Assessment showing income of $50,542, finding that future income for 2013 could not be determined with certainty.

Ongoing child support was therefore calculated using the 2012 income figure.

The court declined to determine disputed issues regarding alleged past payments and adjustments based solely on conflicting affidavit evidence, indicating such matters would require a summary trial.

The court confirmed that the child remained a full‑time student and ordered continued support with a monthly amount adjusted accordingly.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a conviction entered following a guilty plea, relying on a mental health assessment suggesting he may have been suffering from schizoaffective disorder at the time of the plea.

The assessment raised the possibility that the appellant may have been not criminally responsible.

The court noted that fresh evidence may be admitted on appeal to establish lack of criminal responsibility but that more than a mere possibility would ultimately be required to succeed.

The appellant also alleged that the Crown failed to disclose police reports documenting his mental illness at the time of the original proceedings.

The court granted an extension of time to appeal and deemed the notice of appeal served with the motion materials to have been served on time.

The responding party brought a motion for temporary relief pending trial in a family law dispute concerning child support and extraordinary expenses.

The court continued a prior order preventing enforcement of extraordinary expenses through the Family Responsibility Office, finding that the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the amount and apportionment of those expenses created issues requiring trial.

The court also adjusted the payor’s guideline child support based on confirmed income figures, ordering retroactive support based on a 2011–2012 income of $44,850 and prospective support based on a 2013 income of $48,464.

The court further authorized questioning sessions in light of the triable issues and declined to make a costs order given the divided success on the motion.

The applicant school boards, as Schedule 2 employers, sought judicial review of the WSIB's refusal to disclose medical and employment information from injured workers' claim files.

The applicants sought this information to pursue subrogated claims against US Asbestos Compensation Trust Funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the right of subrogation under s. 30(11) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act does not confer a right of access to a worker's personal information.

The Court also held that the applicants' challenge regarding the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was premature, as they had an adequate alternative remedy through the freedom of information request process.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $1,000 for injuries sustained in a bar fight.

The Board had reduced the compensation under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act due to the appellant's criminal lifestyle, and under s. 17(2) for his failure to cooperate with police.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Board erred in law by applying s. 17(1) without establishing a nexus between the appellant's conduct and his injuries.

The matter was remitted to the Board to reconsider the compensation amount based solely on the s. 17(2) finding.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision that prohibited assigning teachers more than three courses per semester without agreement.

The school board argued that teachers had an implied duty to act reasonably when refusing consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the provision granted an absolute right to withhold consent was reasonable and well within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence action against a municipality arising from a single‑vehicle collision on a rural road curve that caused catastrophic injuries to a young driver.

The court considered whether the municipality breached its duty under s. 44 of the Municipal Act to keep the roadway in a reasonable state of repair, focusing primarily on inadequate warning signage and the absence of an advisory speed sign for a sharp curve.

Expert evidence established that proper signage, including a 40 km/h advisory speed tab and additional warning devices required by the Ontario Traffic Manual, should have been installed.

The municipality had not conducted any evaluation of the signage following amalgamation and allowed substandard signage to remain in place for years.

The court found the municipality liable for failing to maintain the road in a reasonable state of repair, but also held the driver contributorily negligent for failing to sufficiently reduce speed in snowy conditions.

Following a wrongful dismissal action in which the plaintiff obtained damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the action proceeded under the ordinary procedure, the damages fell within the range of the Simplified Procedure and were only slightly above the Small Claims Court limit.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a claim for bad faith damages, but the court found that commencing the action under the ordinary procedure was not unreasonable.

The court held that the plaintiff achieved modest success and was entitled to costs, but found the claimed partial indemnity costs disproportionate to the recovery.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action following termination without cause after more than eight years of employment as a quality assurance analyst.

The court determined the appropriate reasonable notice period by considering age, length of service, nature of employment, and compensation structure including overtime, bonus, benefits, and pension contributions.

A nine‑month notice period was found appropriate and damages were calculated accordingly, subject to deductions for amounts already paid and mitigation earnings.

The plaintiff also sought aggravated or bad faith damages based on the employer’s conduct surrounding the dismissal.

The court held that while the employer’s conduct was insensitive and unprofessional, it did not rise to the level of egregious or bad faith misconduct required under the governing jurisprudence.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to strike the plaintiff's claims in strict liability, negligence, and nuisance arising from environmental contamination.

The strict liability claim was struck on consent.

The court held that the plaintiff's claims for damages other than property devaluation were statute-barred because the limitation period resumed when the class action abandoned those claims in 2002.

However, the claim for property devaluation was not statute-barred as the limitation period remained suspended until the plaintiff was excluded from the class in 2009.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the remaining claims.

A sales representative sued for commission arising from an exceptionally large pandemic-related order placed within his exclusive territory.

The employer argued that an internal notice limiting commissions and a later bonus agreement reduced the representative’s entitlement.

The court held that the original commission agreement did not permit unilateral alteration by notice, but the representative subsequently signed a bonus agreement accepting a reduced payment.

Although the agreement was harsh and the bargaining power unequal, the evidence did not establish coercion, duress, or unconscionability sufficient to invalidate the contract.

The representative’s claim for full commission failed and the bonus agreement governed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision which held that the Board could not award damages for workplace injuries compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The grievances alleged that exposure to second-hand smoke violated the health and safety provisions of the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, confirming that the historic trade-off barring civil actions for workplace injuries also applies to grievance arbitrations seeking damages for such injuries, unless clear and careful language in the collective agreement provides for supplementary benefits.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance.

The grievance challenged the employer's practice of counting paid bereavement leave under the collective agreement towards the 10 days of unpaid personal emergency leave provided by section 50 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the statute was reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada's Appeal Panel, which upheld the revocation of his license for professional misconduct involving the misappropriation of $418,000 in trust funds.

The appellant argued that exceptional circumstances, including restitution and depression, warranted permission to resign instead of revocation, and that the panels erred by not considering this alternative.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, the panels were not obligated to consider a penalty not requested, and the revocation was well within the range of reasonable outcomes.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of disability by terminating her after she requested medical leave for breast cancer treatment.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages and $2,640 in special damages.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the Tribunal's factual findings or damages assessment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Following a lengthy medical malpractice trial, the court had found one physician negligent and liable while two co-defendants were not found liable.

The parties had previously agreed that damages would be fixed at $430,000 inclusive of interest if liability were established.

The successful plaintiffs sought costs exceeding $529,000 including substantial indemnity fees and disbursements.

The court considered the complexity of medical negligence litigation, the reasonable expectations of the parties, the absence of a formal Rule 49 offer to settle, and the fact that the plaintiffs succeeded against only one of three defendants.

Applying the principle of proportionality and overall reasonableness, the court reduced the requested amount and fixed costs at $400,000 inclusive of disbursements and exclusive of taxes.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order directing a trial of issues arising from a dispute between equal shareholders.

The court considered extensive affidavit evidence and noted that the parties had the opportunity to cross-examine on that evidence.

The court concluded that there were no material facts in dispute and that the principal issue could properly be determined on a motion rather than requiring a trial.

Relying on prior authority confirming that issues may be resolved on motion where facts are not contested, the court dismissed the applicant’s motion seeking a trial of issues and granted relief to the respondents.