Joan L. Lax

The appellant City of Waterloo appealed a trial decision finding that a competing bidder, Xterra, failed to comply with the material terms of a municipal tender.

The trial judge concluded that the requirement to submit a bid including only the base bid was a material term, and that Xterra's failure to follow this instruction constituted non-compliance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's decision involved a mixed question of fact and law, and rejected the appellant's argument that the standard of review was correctness.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent college's decision to involuntarily withdraw her from its nursing program for breaching an Academic Behaviour Contract.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, as she was advised of the allegations and given the opportunity to respond before both the Academic Administrator and the Vice President (Academic).

Several police officers sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board granting the Chief of Police an extension of time to serve notices of disciplinary hearings under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The officers argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to provide full disclosure of the investigative brief, denying an oral hearing, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's procedure met the minimal requirements of fairness for an administrative, pre-charge decision and that the Board's decision to allow the delay was reasonable given the unprecedented complexity of the underlying criminal investigation.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding development projects in a mixed industrial-residential area.

The Board had approved predominantly residential developments, rejecting the municipality's policy requiring a minimum non-residential component to preserve employment lands.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's failure to properly consider the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statements, and the Official Plan raised questions of law of sufficient importance, and there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

The appellants brought a motion to extend the time to perfect their appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, as two of the three required transcripts were delayed by court reporters prioritizing child welfare cases.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the appellants failed to maintain a firm intention to appeal.

The court granted the motion, finding the appellants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and demonstrated a firm intention to appeal, while the respondent suffered no prejudice.

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

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for unpaid rent.

The tenants did not appear at the motion.

The court found that the grounds for appeal did not disclose a question of law and that the tenants were using the statutory right of appeal to remain in the premises rent-free.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted, the stay was lifted, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of an eviction order for rent arrears.

The tenant sought an adjournment to consult with counsel.

The court denied the adjournment, finding it to be a further delaying tactic, as the tenant had paid no rent for seven months despite claiming to have the funds.

The court found the appeal disclosed no question of law and was filed solely to obtain a stay and delay the landlord.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted, the stay was lifted, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The applicants, several police officers, brought a motion for a limited publication ban regarding Notices of Hearing and the Chief of Police's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that inadequate notice was given for the relief regarding the Notices of Hearing, and that the applicants failed to satisfy the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban on the Chief's report, agreeing with the prior endorsement of the motion judge.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which classified an entire property as industrial.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to properly interpret and apply s. 6(1) of O.Reg. 282/98 under the Assessment Act.

Given the Board's findings that the appellant company operated independently, did no manufacturing, and had a separate lease, the portion of the property used by the company should have been classified as commercial.

The appeal was allowed, and the portion of the property was restored to the commercial property class for the 2004 and 2005 taxation years.

The applicant, a First Nations Constable with the Anishinabek Police Service (APS), was terminated by the Chief of Police following allegations of sexual misconduct.

The termination occurred without a hearing, contrary to the APS Code of Conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that although the APS was created by a tripartite agreement and not by statute, it is a public body fulfilling a governmental function and is therefore subject to judicial review.

The court found that the applicant was a public office holder entitled to procedural fairness, which he was denied.

The decision to terminate was quashed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award that denied the Ottawa local union a provincially negotiated increase for room and board under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator interpreted the Memorandum of Settlement contrary to its plain words, which granted the increase unless the local union had already negotiated an increase.

Since the Ottawa local had not negotiated an increase, its members were entitled to the provincial increase.

The court held the arbitrator's interpretation was patently unreasonable and quashed the award.

The appellants appealed a costs award of $610,700.85 granted to the respondents following a successful class action certification motion.

The appellants argued the award was excessive, failed to reflect reasonable expectations, and was inconsistent with prior certification motion costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion, applied the overriding principle of reasonableness, and appropriately reduced the respondents' claimed costs by 40 percent to account for duplication and overkill.

The court emphasized the high level of deference owed to a case-management judge in complex class proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The union had negotiated mid-term amendments to a collective agreement with Loblaws to address competition from Wal-Mart, without holding a ratification vote by the general membership.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found that the Board's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its conclusion that the union acted fairly and reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment regarding the division of net family property.

She argued the trial judge erred by excluding a $190,000 mortgage discharge from the husband's net family property and by limiting the unequal division of property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act to the difference in net family properties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the pleadings did not support the inclusion of the mortgage discharge, and affirming that s. 5(6) only empowers the court to order an unequal division of the difference in value of net family property, not to rearrange family assets.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which found her incapacitated due to a mental condition and suspended her Certificate of Registration.

The appellant argued the panel relied on a psychiatric assessment based on incorrect information and fabricated evidence.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of reasonableness simpliciter and found that the panel's credibility findings and reliance on the psychiatric assessment were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission disqualifying a horse for a positive drug test and suspending and fining its trainer.

The trainer argued the positive test resulted from contamination or an unknown metabolic process of a permitted drug, and that the Commission applied an absolute liability standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's rejection of the contamination theory was not patently unreasonable and that the trainer breached the standard of care by failing to keep adequate medical records.

The court also rejected the argument that the tribunal Chair's questioning of the trainer was unfair.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held she was entitled to receive fifty percent of the basic needs component of income support for her three children.

The tribunal found that the appellant shared primary care and control of the children equally with her ex-husband under a joint custody arrangement.

The Divisional Court found no error in the tribunal's conclusion that the children were dependent children only fifty percent of the time, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought to appeal or judicially review a family law arbitration award regarding spousal and child support in the Divisional Court.

The court held that the Arbitration Act provides a comprehensive code for reviewing arbitral decisions, precluding an application for judicial review to sidestep that regime.

Finding that the application to set aside the award under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act was brought in the wrong court, the Divisional Court exercised its discretion under s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to adjourn the matter to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which had revoked the respondent's motor vehicle inspection station licence but declined to revoke his mechanic's registration.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's conclusion that the respondent had not violated the Act or regulations was contrary to unchallenged evidence of his twelve convictions under the Act.

The court set aside the tribunal's direction forbidding the revocation of the respondent's registration.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for benefits related to seizure symptoms and denying his reconsideration request.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal carefully weighed conflicting medical opinions and properly applied its test for reconsideration.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.