Jennings J.

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.

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 City of Toronto appealed a decision ordering its Chief Building Official to issue building permits for sun rooms using sandwich panels and to evaluate the applicant's load test data.

The City argued that section 9(1) of the Building Code Act granted the official discretion to refuse to evaluate test results if the testing method was not specified in the Building Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 9(1) does not grant discretion to defeat applications relying on design methods authorized in the Building Code, such as load testing.

The court also upheld the motions judge's factual finding that the submitted data was adequate and dismissed the appeal on costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the revocation of his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to disclose his status as a registered salesperson and his interest as a beneficial purchaser in multiple transactions.

Furthermore, he acted for vendors in transactions where he was the undisclosed beneficial purchaser, violating the standards of honesty and integrity required under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $3,000 to the respondent.

The appellant sought leave to appeal two orders in a family law proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal an order staying the appellant's child support application pending compliance with a financial disclosure order.

However, the Court granted leave and allowed the appeal of a case conference judge's order that struck the affidavit of the parties' teenage child.

The Court found the case conference judge erred by striking the affidavit on his own initiative without hearing submissions, contrary to the Family Law Rules, and without providing adequate reasons for exercising parens patriae jurisdiction.

The affidavit was restored to the record.

The Grand River Conservation Authority appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the Tenant Protection Act applied to seasonal cottage lot leases.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation that the s. 3(a) exemption for seasonal accommodation only applies to commercial establishments like hotels or campgrounds, not to these cottage lots.

However, the Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to determine whether a prior mediated settlement between the parties, which purported to exclude the Act's application, was valid under s. 181(2) of the Act.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of decisions by a FSCO arbitrator and Director's delegate finding that the respondent insured suffered a catastrophic impairment under s. 2(1.1)(e)(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted 'reasonable period of time' for a Glasgow Coma Scale score.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review is patent unreasonableness and the tribunal's decisions were supported by evidence and within its specialized jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring a grievor, a registered nurse returning from a medical leave for physical surgery, to provide answers to questions regarding her mental health.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, as there was no basis to require a psychological assessment given that the grievor's absence was for physical, not mental, reasons.

The application for judicial review was granted and the arbitrator's award was set aside.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that found she suffered no compensable damages from a motor vehicle accident because her injuries did not meet the Insurance Act threshold.

In supplementary reasons, the Divisional Court addressed the appellant's claim for past and future loss of income, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that her inability to work was not caused by the accident.

The appeal remained dismissed, and costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,000 payable to the respondents.

The appellant husband appealed an order varying his child support obligations.

A previous consent order had set support below the Child Support Guidelines table amount.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstances, as the husband was no longer obligated to support the two eldest children, and increased the support for the remaining three children to the Guidelines amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence, as there were no special provisions justifying a departure from the Guidelines.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that defamatory words were spoken without qualified privilege.

The trial judge had found that while the appellant's communication to the police was privileged, his communication to a co-worker was not, as there was no reciprocal interest in the communication.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent employee was constructively dismissed and awarding her damages.

The respondent, a director, had refused to accept a corporate restructuring that required her to report to a newly appointed assistant vice-president rather than the senior vice-president.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in construing the altered reporting obligation as a transfer of responsibility.

Applying an objective test, the court found that the structural change did not constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract, and therefore, there was no constructive dismissal.