J. M. Spence

The respondent school board sought $60,000 in partial indemnity costs following the dismissal of the applicants' application for judicial review regarding a school closure.

The applicants argued they should be shielded from costs as public interest litigants, or alternatively that costs should be fixed at $15,000.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest immunity argument, noting the applicants acted partly in self-interest and adopted a 'no holds barred' approach that increased costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs payable to the respondent at $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement.

The issue was whether the agreement provided for 100% reimbursement for a psychologist's report diagnosing the grievor's child with autism, or if it was subject to a cap for psychological services.

The Board had relied on a clause in a subsequent Implementation Agreement that neither party had made submissions on.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it relied on a paragraph that, in context, only applied to routine eye examinations and had no relevance to the psychological assessment at issue.

The Board's decision was quashed and remitted to a differently-constituted panel.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy so the landlords' son could move into the unit.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law regarding the good faith requirement, maintenance breaches, human rights accommodation, and the landlords' corporate status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations on good faith and maintenance were unappealable questions of fact, the eviction was unrelated to the tenant's disabilities, and the individual landlords met the statutory definition of a landlord.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeals Tribunal that ordered the re-registration of the respondent as a real estate salesperson with conditions.

The Registrar had initially refused the application based on the respondent's history of financial and legal problems.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal reasonably considered the whole of the respondent's conduct, including recent evidence that he was turning his life around, and appropriately imposed conditions to protect the public.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and requiring him to pay for damages to an electrical panel.

The tenant argued he was denied an opportunity to participate because he mistook the date of the continuation hearing, and that the Board was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing and the Board was entitled to proceed in his absence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Court also found ample evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the tenant wilfully damaged the electrical panel.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to close two secondary schools and build a new one, alleging procedural unfairness, lack of statutory authority, and unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board substantially complied with the Ministry's school closure guidelines and its own policies.

The court held that the public consultation process was meaningful and that the failure to disclose certain confidential student survey data did not breach the duty of procedural fairness, as it did not prejudice the applicants' ability to participate.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision which found that the respondent insured was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The insurer had denied the insured's claim for a non-earner benefit but failed to provide a copy of the medical report it relied upon until more than two years later.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable, as the failure to provide the medical report meant the insurer provided incomplete reasons for the denial, and thus the two-year limitation period did not commence until the report was finally provided.

The appellant municipality appealed an order varying a previous unentered order that had dismissed the self-represented respondent's action.

The motion judge had varied his own order to allow the respondent to file an amended statement of claim, on the condition that it be prepared by a licensed lawyer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in exercising his discretion to vary the order without considering the potential impact on limitation periods, and that there was no clear authority to order a self-represented litigant to retain a lawyer to draft pleadings.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed acts of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee's reasons were flawed.

Specifically, the Committee failed to distinguish between the complainant's honesty and the reliability of her evidence, subjected the appellant's evidence to a different level of scrutiny, and improperly used after-the-fact conduct to support the complainant's version of events.

The matter was remitted for a re-hearing.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding it violated the Liquor Licence Act by serving underage and intoxicated patrons, resulting in a five-day licence suspension.

The appellant argued it had exercised due diligence through staff training.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the staff failed to properly check identification or assess intoxication, thereby failing to establish due diligence.

The court also upheld the five-day suspension as a reasonable penalty.

The applicants sought to challenge the Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear a free-standing challenge to the policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, confirming that the Tribunal, as a creature of statute, only has the jurisdiction granted by the legislature and that such a challenge must be pursued by way of a court application.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for a mentally incapable plaintiff, appealed a motion judge's refusal to approve settlements that would dismiss two actions without costs.

The motion judge had held that the plaintiff had an absolute right to a hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that there is no absolute right to a hearing and that a litigation guardian has the authority to settle actions if it is in the best interests of the party under disability.

The court approved the settlements.

Shareholders sought an order requiring the appointment of an auditor and the production of audited financial statements for certain fiscal years under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The applicants argued that a limitation period had not expired for the claim relating to audited financial statements for the 2011 fiscal year.

The court accepted that the limitation period for the 2011 claim had not expired but held that the application sought the appointment of an auditor rather than merely delivery of statements.

Because shareholders were aware by the statutory annual meeting deadlines that auditors had not been appointed, the limitation period for those claims began running in 2010 and 2011 and expired before the application was commenced in 2014.

The endorsement was revised only to clarify the limitation analysis, and the claims remained barred.

The self-represented plaintiff sued the defendant airline for breach of contract and negligence after he was denied boarding on a return flight from Jamaica to Toronto because he presented a Canadian Citizenship Card instead of a passport.

The plaintiff claimed damages for the loss of a construction project and future business opportunities resulting from his delayed return.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the airline properly exercised its contractual right to refuse carriage to ensure compliance with its obligations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court also found that the plaintiff's claimed damages were unproven, contributed to by his own failure to mitigate, and too remote.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on a patch of ice in Nathan Phillips Square, suffering a fractured leg.

He sued the City of Toronto for damages under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found that the City breached its duty of care by failing to identify and remove the unsafe ice patch in a high-traffic area.

However, the court also found the plaintiff 50% contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout.

General damages were assessed at $45,000, subject to the 50% reduction.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim against the defendant driver.

The plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant's vehicle when an oncoming vehicle crossed the centre line, creating an emergency.

The defendant steered left to avoid a collision, but the oncoming vehicle swerved back, resulting in a head-on collision.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' and the 'agony of collision' principle, concluding that the conflicting expert evidence and the factual determination of whether the defendant's evasive action was reasonable in the circumstances required a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to add two parties and a new oppression remedy to their statement of claim in a dispute over a real estate joint venture.

The motion judge had dismissed the amendments on the basis that the appellants failed to produce evidence supporting the allegations against the proposed parties.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that on a motion to amend pleadings, the facts pleaded must be taken as true and provable, and the court should not look beyond the pleadings to require evidentiary proof at that stage.

The proposed amendments adequately disclosed causes of action for conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and oppression.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a property transfer and child support, arguing the trial judge erred in his conduct of the trial and in finding a separation agreement invalid.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge appropriately assisted the self-represented appellant and ensured a fair trial.

The Court also upheld the finding that the separation agreement was invalid under the Family Law Act and unenforceable because the appellant had not paid the required consideration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, owner of a commercial plaza, was sued after a worker was electrocuted while working on a pylon sign.

The appellant sought a declaration that the respondent insurer, who issued a policy to one of the appellant's tenants naming the appellant as an additional insured 'as landlord only', had a duty to defend the claim.

The application judge dismissed the application, declining to consider extrinsic evidence regarding who hired the worker.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the extrinsic evidence was not undisputed and, even if admitted, would not trigger a duty to defend because the true nature of the claim was against the appellant as owner of the plaza, not as landlord.

The proposed representative plaintiff in a class proceeding alleged misrepresentations by the defendant, Canadian Solar Inc., in its secondary market disclosure.

The defendant's shares traded only on the NASDAQ exchange, not in Canada.

The defendant appealed a motion judge's finding that it was a 'responsible issuer' under s. 138.1 of the Securities Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'responsible issuer' does not require the issuer's securities to be publicly traded in Canada, provided the issuer has a real and substantial connection to Ontario.