James A. Ramsay

The court heard four preliminary motions in a criminal case for attempted murder: one from the Crown and three from the defence.

The Crown sought permission for certain witnesses to testify via videoconference.

The defence sought disclosure of internal prosecution communications, a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter (Jordan), and exclusion of GPS data evidence under section 8 of the Charter.

The court partially granted the Crown's request for videoconference testimony, requiring Laval police officers to testify in person due to credibility concerns.

All three defence motions were dismissed, as the court found no abuse of process, no unreasonable delay under Jordan (considering the defence's lack of sustained effort to accelerate proceedings and the case's complexity), and no violation of privacy rights regarding the GPS data from the abandoned/stolen vehicle.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Celexa.

The proposed class action alleged a failure to warn that the drug is or may be a teratogen causing congenital malformations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Class Proceedings Judge's findings that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality due to the hundreds of potential congenital malformations with unique etiologies, and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because individual issues would overwhelm any common issues.

The applicant daycare sought judicial review of a Ministry of Education Director's decision refusing to approve its proposed supervisor.

The Director had previously revoked the supervisor's approval following an inspection.

When the daycare reapplied, the Director refused approval based on new, undisclosed concerns regarding absenteeism and past complaints that had not been raised as issues previously.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Director breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide notice of the case the applicant had to meet.

The matter was remitted to a different director for a fresh decision.

The plaintiff, a retired teacher, brought an action for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional suffering against a school board and its chairman after she was stopped from presenting at a board meeting and the chairman subsequently made public comments characterizing her presentation as transphobic and hateful.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the defamation claim, finding it had substantial merit, there were no valid defences, and the harm to the plaintiff outweighed the public interest in protecting the chairman's expression.

The claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering was dismissed.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation ordering it to pay $7,500 in delayed occupancy compensation to a purchaser.

The builder argued that the delay was unavoidable due to a fire and the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it had provided proper notice to the purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Tarion's decision was reasonable because the builder's notice failed to specify an end date for the unavoidable delay or provide a brief description of it, and the builder failed to provide sufficient evidence that the entire delay was caused by the fire and pandemic.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring them to pay $2,000 in rent arrears.

The tenants had vacated the premises with 30 days' notice instead of the required 60 days, arguing they had assigned the lease.

The Board found the landlord reasonably refused consent to the assignment because the tenants failed to provide requested financial information about the proposed assignees.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding no error of law or procedural unfairness, and noted the tenants were correctly barred from raising the landlord's non-compliance with the Act because they failed to provide the required statutory notice.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, an indigenous Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of a Justice of the Peace Review Council (JPRC) decision recommending her removal from office for judicial misconduct.

The misconduct involved a prolonged pattern of inappropriate intervention in her son's traffic ticket prosecution.

The applicant argued the JPRC majority failed to reasonably apply Gladue principles regarding her indigenous heritage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the JPRC majority reasonably concluded that the applicant's lack of insight and failure to accept responsibility meant that public confidence in the administration of justice could only be restored by her removal from office.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits on the basis that it was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellant had returned to work immediately after the accident but stopped working 16 months later, at which point he applied for benefits.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the doctrine of discoverability.

Following Tomec, the court held that the limitation period could not begin to run before the appellant became eligible for the benefits.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) applied for judicial review of a Grievance Procedure Arbitrator's (GPA) decision ordering the disclosure of a redacted workplace harassment investigation report to the union's Local Grievance Committee.

The CBC argued the GPA's decision was not reviewable, that the GPA lacked jurisdiction, and that the CBC was denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held that the GPA's decision was reviewable because the GPA exercised a statutory power of decision under the Canada Labour Code.

The Court found the disclosure order was reasonable and within the GPA's broad jurisdiction to resolve disputes over the exchange of relevant information.

The Court also dismissed the procedural fairness arguments, finding the CBC had ample opportunity to make submissions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Roger J. dated January 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no respondent filed responding motion materials, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that a binding settlement of tort and accident benefits claims was reached via email following mediation.

Shortly after the email exchange, the plaintiff was killed.

The insurer argued no settlement was reached because the plaintiff had not finalized the structure percentage or signed the settlement disclosure notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the essential terms were agreed upon, the structure percentage was a default minimum, and the right to rescind under consumer protection legislation implies a settlement was already reached.

The self-represented appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application.

The appellants argued that the landlord's refusal to renew their residential lease for a one-year term constituted harassment under s. 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 38(1) of the Act, the non-renewal of a fixed-term lease automatically results in a month-to-month tenancy with full security of tenure.

The court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence regarding the landlord's motivation, as the appellants' legal position was untenable.

The applicant purchasers brought a motion under the Vendors and Purchasers Act to dispute a $152,640 increase in the purchase price of a pre-construction home.

The respondent builder claimed the increase was justified under an 'added cost adjustment' clause due to pandemic-related supply issues and provided a statutory declaration.

The court held that the clause only applied to costs directly caused by changes to building or zoning requirements, not general pandemic responses.

Furthermore, the Tarion warranty schedule did not permit the adjustment.

The court declared the builder was not entitled to the price increase.

Following an appeal in an estate matter, the respondent sought costs of $43,630.71 on a substantial indemnity basis, payable immediately rather than from the appellant's share of the estate.

The Divisional Court found no reprehensible conduct to justify substantial indemnity costs and fixed costs at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court ordered the costs to be paid forthwith due to uncertainty regarding the timing of the estate's distribution.

The applicant, a nursing student, sought judicial review of a university Senate Appeals Committee decision upholding his failing grade in a clinical practicum.

The applicant was failed after completing only 52 of 419 required hours, shortly after raising concerns about his preceptor's standards of practice.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the evaluation, grade review, and appeal processes were procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

The university failed to follow its own syllabus, denied the applicant an opportunity to respond to credibility issues, and provided inadequate reasons.

The decisions were quashed and the matter remitted to the nursing school.

The appellant appealed an order approving the passing of accounts by the estate trustee of their late brother's estate.

The appellant argued the audit judge erred in the standard of recordkeeping required, specifically regarding the absence of written receipts for some expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the audit judge correctly applied the standard of care of a person of ordinary prudence and reasonably accepted the trustee's sworn explanations and corroborating evidence.

The court also upheld the audit judge's decisions regarding the distribution of artwork, the refusal to order a trial of late-raised issues, and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report finding she breached the Code of Conduct, and the municipal council's subsequent decision to suspend her remuneration and restrict her email communications.

The Divisional Court upheld the Integrity Commissioner's findings that the applicant's communications with the Chief Administrative Officer were abusive and breached the Code.

However, the Court found the council's decision to restrict the applicant from emailing all municipal staff for 14.5 months was overbroad, punitive, and unreasonable.

The application was granted in part, quashing the email restriction.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration decision that excluded temporary teachers (those without Ontario College of Teachers membership) from the occasional teachers' bargaining unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator did not breach procedural fairness, as the parties were invited to make submissions on the determinative issue.

The Court also held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014, requiring occasional teachers to be on the board's roster to be included in the bargaining unit, was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding four requests for condominium records under section 55 of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to identify any error of law, as required by section 1.46(2) of the Act, and instead challenged findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that there was no refusal to provide records without reasonable excuse and awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,500 to the respondent.