Joan L. Lax

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission, which upheld a private racetrack's decision to suspend the applicant owner's racing and stabling privileges following the death of a 13-year-old racehorse during training.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission had jurisdiction to determine whether the public interest warranted interfering with the racetrack's private property rights.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was procedurally fair and reasonable, as the evidence supported the finding that the applicant failed to take reasonable precautions regarding the horse's fitness.

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

The Director argued the Tribunal erred by relying on the respondent's testimony to find a 'substantial' impairment, asserting that medical evidence was required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while medical evidence is required to verify the impairment, the determination of whether it is 'substantial' requires consideration of the totality of the evidence, including the claimant's credible testimony.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct for unnecessary use of force and neglect of duty.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by prematurely judging a witness's credibility, misapprehending evidence, and failing to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the evidence of the prosecution's key witness.

The misconduct finding for use of force was set aside and a new hearing ordered.

The neglect of duty finding for failing to make notebook entries was upheld, but the penalty was set aside and remitted.

The Minister of Transportation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. $393,000 for injurious affection resulting from the construction of Highway 417, which bypassed Antrim's property and substantially interfered with its access.

Antrim cross-appealed, seeking over $7.6 million for relocation and construction costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the OMB reasonably concluded the highway construction caused a substantial interference amounting to an actionable nuisance, and correctly held that the Expropriations Act does not permit recovery of relocation costs where no land is expropriated.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding a duty to accommodate a paramedic who lost his Class F driver's licence due to vision problems.

The arbitrator had ordered the employer to accommodate the grievor in an 'attend only' capacity.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the arbitrator's decision, holding that the non-accommodating standard requiring all paramedics to drive was reasonably necessary to achieve the highest level of health and safety.

The court found the arbitrator erred by applying a standard of 'reasonable safety' and relying on a lack of historical evidence regarding volunteer paramedics.

The appellant, a former director of a condominium corporation, sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend him in an action brought by the corporation.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the extension of coverage was not triggered and the negligence claim was merely derivative of deliberate conduct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the effective date for assessing the appellant's knowledge was the start of the successive policy periods, at which time a claim was not reasonably foreseeable.

Furthermore, the negligence claim was independent, triggering the insurer's duty to defend.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a decision setting aside a Master's order that refused to bifurcate a jury trial.

The Master had relied on appellate authority stating there is no jurisdiction to bifurcate a jury trial, but the motion judge found the Master erred and ordered severance.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision given existing binding appellate authority prohibiting the bifurcation of jury trials, and questioning whether the correct test for severance was applied.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that directed a trial on the issue of whether a franchise disclosure document was merely incomplete under s. 6(1) of the Arthur Wishart Act or amounted to no disclosure under s. 6(2).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the sufficiency of a disclosure document is a highly fact-specific inquiry.

The court concluded that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of general importance warranting the attention of the Divisional Court.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding a refused tree removal permit.

The right of appeal under s. 136(1) of the Municipal Act had been repealed before the permit was refused.

The court upheld the Board's finding that the moving party had no vested right of appeal upon merely filing the application, as the right only arises upon an actual refusal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, Toronto Police Services Board, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal pending its application for judicial review.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Ontario Human Rights Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal without providing an amended complaint or addressing the complainant's delay.

The Divisional Court found the applicant satisfied the three-part test for a stay, noting serious issues regarding procedural fairness and jurisdiction, and that proceeding before the Tribunal would render the judicial review moot.

The motion for a stay was granted and an expedited hearing for the judicial review was directed.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of an eviction order on the basis that it was manifestly devoid of merit.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had ordered eviction after finding the tenants committed an illegal act involving obstructing and assaulting a peace officer, and declined to grant relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Act due to the tenants' lack of candour.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law and was merely an attempt to overturn findings of fact and credibility.

The motion to quash was granted and the certificate of stay was vacated.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for an unpaid account of $4,886 for services rendered to a former client.

The appellant sued the respondent, a lawyer who took over the client's file, alleging breach of contract for failing to protect the account.

The trial judge found no cause of action against the respondent personally and that the account was not reasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appellant physician appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for medical malpractice following a colonoscopy procedure.

The trial judge found the physician breached the standard of care by failing to order an urgent CT scan when the plaintiff presented with severe abdominal pain and low haemoglobin, which would have diagnosed an intra-abdominal haemorrhage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the expert evidence on standard of care and causation.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice and upheld by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the imposition of consecutive sentences at or near the maximum for the serious offences committed.

Although fresh evidence presented an encouraging picture for the appellant's future, it did not warrant a reduction in the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, the paternal grandmother of two young children, appealed a family court decision granting a Crown wardship order with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the family court judge's assessment of the children's best interests, particularly regarding the appellant's inability to prevent domestic violence and criminal conduct in her home.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the decisions below and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision making the children Crown wards without access, arguing she was denied procedural fairness at the status review hearing.

The children had previously been placed in her custody but were apprehended after a police incident involving alleged crack cocaine trafficking at her home.

At the time of the status review hearing, the appellant had relapsed into drug use and was in default of court orders.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant and her lawyer participated in the hearing and no adjournment was requested.

The appeal was dismissed as the disposition was clearly in the best interests of the children.

The defendants appealed an order striking paragraph 54 of their statement of defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the allegations could not succeed as a defence or partial defence to the claims.

The Court noted that a fiduciary is not responsible for all damages suffered by a complaining party regardless of their cause, distinguishing the case from Plaza Fiberglass.

The appeal was allowed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellant appealed the assessment of a legal account by an Assessment Officer, which had been previously confirmed by two Superior Court judges.

The appellant argued for the first time that the Assessment Officer lacked jurisdiction because the retainer was invalid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issue was not raised below, the plain wording of the retainer did not support the appellant's submission, and the appeal was entirely devoid of merit.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an arbitrator's award that allowed a grievance regarding holiday pay for daycare workers.

The arbitrator had interpreted the collective agreement to conclude that holiday pay was conditional on the employee working the day immediately following the holiday they were required to work, which in this case was after a summer layoff.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court found the arbitrator's subjective interpretation of the collective agreement was within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision, which was heard by a motion judge who reserved his decision.

Six months later, the judge issued a brief endorsement denying leave without providing reasons.

The Divisional Court held that litigants are entitled to reasons and that the failure to provide them raised concerns that the motion was not dealt with on its merits.

The Court set aside the endorsement and ordered the motion for leave to be reheard before another judge.