John R. R. Jennings

The applicant sought an adjournment of its judicial review application pending the Ontario Energy Board's reconsideration of an earlier decision regarding the applicant's failure to sign an assignment document.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, noting that the outcome of the reconsideration could significantly impact the judicial review application.

Costs of $600 each were awarded to the intervenors.

The Ontario Nurses Association brought a motion to review and set aside a decision of Molloy J., which struck out an affidavit containing correspondence between an arbitration chair and the employer's nominee.

The underlying judicial review application by the Board of Health alleged a denial of natural justice because the arbitration board did not discuss the evidence before the chair issued a proposed decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, agreeing with Molloy J. that the correspondence was unnecessary to introduce as evidence because the facts it sought to establish were already addressed in the chair's reasons and were not disputed.

The City of Toronto appealed a trial judge's decision regarding liability for a slip and fall in a municipal laneway.

The City argued the trial judge erred in assessing the standard of maintenance, failing to apply the strict notice period for sidewalks under the Municipal Act, and failing to find contributory negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law, and upheld the trial judge's costs award.

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board that approved a development application.

The applicants argued the approval effectively down-zoned a neighbouring property by creating a key lot, without a rezoning application being before the Board.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdiction to change zoning without following the procedures in the Planning Act, and concluding the issue was of sufficient importance to municipalities to warrant the attention of the full panel.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding the respondent to be a person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the ODSPA.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by accepting the respondent's self-assessment of his emotional disability and restrictions in daily living activities without the mandatory medical verification by a prescribed professional.

The decision was set aside and the matter remitted for a re-hearing before a different Tribunal member.

The applicant, an anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the respondent's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee that effectively shut down his practice following a patient's death.

The court found that the Committee's decision to issue the interim order was unreasonable because there was no evidence of probable harm to future patients, only speculation based on a single incident.

Furthermore, the court held that the Committee breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed materials and improperly considered evidence protected under the Evidence Act.

The application was allowed and the interim order was quashed.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision certifying the respondent union, pending an application for judicial review.

The central issue before the OLRB was whether the applicant was the true employer.

On the motion for a stay, the court considered whether the first branch of the test required a 'strong prima facie case' or merely a 'serious issue to be tried'.

The court held that in the context of OLRB decisions protected by strong privative clauses, the 'strong prima facie case' standard applies.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this standard, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the union.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying the action as a class proceeding regarding allegedly defective heart devices.

The defendants argued the motions judge misconstrued the 'some basis in fact' standard and that the class definition was overly inclusive.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the evidentiary principles from Hollick v. Toronto and made factual findings entitled to deference.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

The appellant physician sought a stay of the College's Discipline Committee penalty revoking his licence to practice pending his appeal.

The penalty was based on findings of historic sexual misconduct.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the appellant's practice and income, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the historic nature of the complaints and the success of interim practice restrictions.

The motion for a stay was granted on conditions.

The moving party brought a motion to quash two notices of appeal filed by the responding parties.

The responding parties sought to appeal a decision dismissing their application for an order that the moving party breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The court held that the Act is a complete code and only provides a right of appeal for orders made under section 10.

Since no section 10 order was made, there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion to quash was granted and the notices of appeal were quashed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a Master's order refusing to add a new party plaintiff, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The successful respondents claimed costs of approximately $19,855 and $15,427 respectively.

The court found these amounts excessive given the brief nature of the appeal and the fact that much of the preparation duplicated work done before the Master.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 inclusive for each of the two groups of respondents.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had overturned a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Complaints Committee to take no further action on a complaint.

The complaint alleged the physician treated a patient with contempt and prejudice before the patient's death from pneumonia.

The Divisional Court found that the Board failed to apply the proper standard of reasonableness and deference to the Committee's screening function.

The Court held that the Board's requirement for further investigation into the physician's credibility and use of the word 'lifestyle' was unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the Committee's decision was restored.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial decision finding that an oral agreement between the parties validly terminated a residential tenancy.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 is a complete code and mandates written notice to terminate a tenancy.

The trial judge's finding of an oral agreement was an error in law.

The court set aside the trial judgment and awarded the landlord $6,095.00 for unpaid rent, plus costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that struck out affidavit evidence filed in support of a motion for full indemnity costs.

The excluded evidence detailed prior business dealings between the parties, which the applicant alleged proved the respondent's appeal was brought in bad faith.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the Board's conclusion that pre-proceeding conduct was irrelevant to costs.

The Court held that denying the opportunity to review conduct that occurred prior to launching the appeal could amount to a denial of natural justice.

The applicant appealed a decision dismissing his claim against the respondent bank for seizing a GIC and funds from his savings account to satisfy overdue credit card charges.

The applicant argued his signature on the security pledge agreements was forged.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual finding that the applicant signed the agreements.

Furthermore, the court upheld the finding that the bank was entitled to exercise its common law right of set off.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his solicitor negligence claim against the respondent law firm.

The appellant alleged his former solicitor negligently handled his breach of fiduciary duty claim against a real estate agent, pressuring him into a settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the standard of care for solicitors.

Following a successful appeal by the defendants regarding a representation order, the parties sought a determination on the costs of the original motions before the motion judge, which had been reserved.

The motion judge had originally awarded $9,000 globally to the plaintiff for success on three motions.

The Divisional Court suggested an arbitrary reduction of the costs award to $6,000 to reflect the defendants' success on appeal regarding one of the motions, and referred the matter back to the motion judge if the parties could not agree.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that denied a collective agreement severance benefit to employees terminated for absenteeism arising from a disability.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the severance provision was designed to benefit employees subject to permanent lay-off, not all terminated employees.

The court agreed that comparing disabled persons to other persons terminated for cause did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a suspension.

The misconduct related to administering Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy to a mentally disabled patient without proper consent, which was found to be outside the scope of chiropractic practice.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by making findings on uncharged matters, failing to give adequate notice, and erring in its credibility assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had adequate notice through pre-hearing disclosure and that the Committee's credibility findings and penalty were reasonable.

The Town of Richmond Hill sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that granted a request to rehear part of a previous OMB decision.

The Town argued the Board made errors in its decision and misunderstood the issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's errors were merely descriptive and did not indicate a misapprehension of the evidence or issues.

The Court also found no error in law in the Board's finding that the original panel misunderstood witness evidence.