Janet Wilson

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order to sell a commercial property under the Partition Act.

The appellant claimed an oral agreement existed where the respondent relinquished her 50% interest in exchange for grocery store inventory.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred by not allowing a further affidavit and by not ordering a trial of an issue regarding ownership, as the doctrine of part performance might defeat the Statute of Frauds.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a trial of an issue was ordered.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal terminating his tenancy for the landlords' personal use.

The tenant alleged procedural fairness breaches, including the member's refusal to grant an adjournment and reasonable apprehension of bias.

Due to a mechanical malfunction, no transcript or tape recording of the tribunal proceedings was available.

The Divisional Court held that the absence of a record made it impossible to fairly assess the tenant's grounds of appeal, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The appeal was allowed, the tribunal's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different member.

The applicant, a paramedic, sought judicial review of a Medical Director's decision to decertify her following complaints about patient care.

The Divisional Court found it had jurisdiction to review the decision because the Medical Director was exercising a statutory power and performing a public function.

However, the court dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, the decision was reasonable and supported by evidence, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board refusing to disqualify an expert witness retained by the respondents.

The applicant had initially contacted the expert and shared allegedly confidential information before the expert declined the retainer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that there is no property in an expert witness and that the applicant failed to establish a risk of prejudice or meet the test for leave to appeal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which had dismissed his appeal of a hearing officer's interlocutory ruling on the basis that the notice of appeal was out of time.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's ruling was interlocutory and could not be appealed until a decision on the merits was made.

Since the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the decision on the merits, it was timely.

The matter was remitted to the Commission to determine the appeal on the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash the City of London's approval of a site plan for a townhouse development and a letter from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the UTRCA letter was not a reviewable decision and that the City Council's approval of the site plan was an intra vires municipal decision that was not patently unreasonable.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a City Council decision granting site plan approval for a condominium development on environmentally sensitive lands near the Thames River.

The applicant attempted to introduce fresh affidavit evidence from experts and herself.

The court admitted portions of the expert evidence commenting on the revised site plan but rejected the applicant's affidavit.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that the City Council's decision was not patently unreasonable because the developer's environmental undertakings to the Ontario Municipal Board would be enforced by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.

No costs were awarded.

The York Catholic District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision awarding Bernard Homes Ltd. and Crestvalley Homes Ltd. disturbance damages for lost builders' profits and solicitor-client costs following an expropriation.

The developers cross-appealed the OMB's dismissal of claims for lost developers' profits, reduction in land value, and lost executive time.

The Divisional Court allowed the School Board's appeal, setting aside the award for lost builders' profits and the solicitor-client costs order, finding that anticipated profits are not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The developers' cross-appeal was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the suspension of his hospital privileges until he completed a remedial anaesthetist review program.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when confronted with multiple complaints without prior notice.

The Divisional Court found that while the initial process was flawed, the hospital cured the defect by agreeing to an independent expert review.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the Court held the HPARB properly concluded there was a legitimate concern for patient safety warranting remedial action.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants appealed a costs award in a motor vehicle action where the jury awarded the plaintiff $20,000.

The trial judge found that the defendants' offer to settle was unenforceable and that section 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act required the statutory deductible to be ignored when considering the cost consequences of an offer to settle under Rule 49.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal because the offer was indeed unenforceable, but clarified that section 267.5(9) does not apply to Rule 49 offers to settle, as doing so would undermine the purpose of the offer to settle rule.

The City of Oshawa appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that repealed an interim control by-law prohibiting the establishment of methadone clinics in the Central Business District.

The by-law was passed following ratepayer resistance to the respondent's proposed clinic.

The OMB found no legitimate planning rationale for the by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OMB had jurisdiction to determine the planning rationale and that its decision, reviewed on a standard of reasonableness, was supported by the evidence and established policies.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting his practice to surgical assisting for six months.

The restriction followed a peer review and a Physician Review Program (PREP) assessment.

The Divisional Court found that the College breached procedural fairness by failing to refer a second peer assessment to a Review Panel, providing selective information to the PREP director, and refusing to disclose the PREP test and video recordings to the applicant.

The decision imposing conditions on the applicant's certificate of registration was quashed.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services that set aside a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct against a police officer.

The officer had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman while off-duty in the Dominican Republic.

The Hearing Officer found the complainant credible and ordered the officer dismissed.

The Commission overturned this decision, finding the complainant's evidence incredible.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Commission failed to apply the correct standard of review (reasonableness) and improperly substituted its own credibility findings for those of the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer's decision and penalty of dismissal were restored.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Complaints Committee's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against a former associate.

The complaints related to a business dispute, alleged theft, and patient solicitation, rather than patient care or professional competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the investigation adequate, the decision reasonable, and no evidence of bias on the part of the College or the Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his appeal from an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

The Board had determined that the applicant resigned and was not constructively dismissed when asked to perform grinding operations.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's conclusion was supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant hospital appealed an arbitrator's preliminary order granting the respondent union an extension of time to proceed to arbitration for a discharge grievance.

The union had missed the 21-day deadline by four days.

The Divisional Court reviewed whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time limit.

The Court held that because the collective agreement specifically included the referral to arbitration as Step 3 of the grievance procedure, the arbitrator correctly concluded she had jurisdiction to extend the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision which found her claim for statutory accident benefits was statute-barred.

The Director's Delegate had concluded that the insurer's notice of refusal, while containing technical defects and incorrect reasons, was 'substantially clear' and triggered the limitation period under s. 281(5) of the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that a notice of refusal must be strictly clear and unequivocal, and must provide the correct reasons for refusal to trigger the limitation period.

The court found that the Director's Delegate erred in law by applying a 'substantially clear' standard.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer their complaints of discrimination based on handicap to a Board of Inquiry.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive full disclosure of the respondents' submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants received the same materials that were before the Commission and had a full opportunity to respond.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was within its discretion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding fee estimates and time extensions for producing records.

The Divisional Court held that the decision was procedural in nature and fell squarely within the Commissioner's expertise.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the court found the decision was not irrational and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding fraud and awarding damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding of fraud, noting the appellant falsely represented that a $123,000 deposit had been paid.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the valuation of the equipment.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct an error in the interest calculation, reducing the judgment amount to $18,533.43.

The appeal and cross-appeal were otherwise dismissed.