John G. J. O'Driscoll

The applicant, a citizens' group, sought judicial review of the City of Toronto and TTC's decision to construct a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West.

The applicant argued the project breached s. 24(1) of the Planning Act for failing to conform with the official plan and that the City failed to complete a proper environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the environmental assessment challenge was an impermissible collateral attack on the Minister's decision to refuse a 'bump up' request.

The Court also held that the project conformed with the transportation policies of the newly approved Official Plan.

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 applicants sought judicial review to set aside a settlement reached by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in a subrogated action against the respondent.

The Board, acting as dominus litis, settled the action for $130,000 after considering an independent legal opinion and the applicants' position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decision to compromise the lawsuit was reasonable, dismissing the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose records provided under the Casino Rama Revenue Agreement.

The applicant argued the records contained commercial information and their disclosure would cause harm.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the records related to the administration of funds, not commercial operations, and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of expected harm.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his civil action for false arrest, wrongful detention, and wrongful search against customs officials.

He alleged he was targeted for a search at Pearson International Airport due to racial profiling.

The trial judge found the customs officer had reasonable grounds for the search based on multiple indicators and that the appellant was not denied his right to counsel.

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

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on an appeal involving claims of false arrest and Charter breaches.

The proposed evidence included correspondence, expert reports, and training manuals.

The Divisional Court applied the Sengmueller test and found that the evidence was either not fresh, not relevant, or could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to trial.

The motion was dismissed, although the factum from the court below was accepted to show the arguments made due to a tape erasure.

The applicant sought to set aside or vary an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed its application for judicial review of an arbitration award administered by a voluntary dispute resolution corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, agreeing with the single judge that jurisdiction to set aside the arbitration award lies exclusively with the Superior Court of Justice under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

Furthermore, the court noted the motion was out of time under Rule 61.16(6) with no grounds justifying an extension.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which had dismissed his appeal of a hearing officer's interlocutory ruling on the basis that the notice of appeal was out of time.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's ruling was interlocutory and could not be appealed until a decision on the merits was made.

Since the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the decision on the merits, it was timely.

The matter was remitted to the Commission to determine the appeal on the merits.

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 appellants, tenants of a mobile home park, appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The tenants sought punitive damages and a rebate for water testing charges invoiced by the landlord after the park's water supply became contaminated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal, as a statutory body, lacks jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The Court also found that section 115(5) of the Tenant Protection Act explicitly permits landlords to charge tenants for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for water testing, regardless of whether it is a mandated maintenance activity or if there is a contractual agreement.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding against the respondent bank.

The proposed class action alleged that the respondent received interest on cash advances at a criminal rate, in violation of s. 347(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and sought restitutionary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the restitutionary claims did not raise common issues and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Law Society of Upper Canada appealed a decision of the LSUC Appeal Panel, which had set aside a Hearing Panel's penalty of disbarment for a lawyer found guilty of professional misconduct and ungovernability.

The lawyer cross-appealed the finding of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the lawyer's cross-appeal, finding the Appeal Panel correctly applied the reasonableness standard to the misconduct finding.

However, the Court allowed the Law Society's appeal, holding that the Appeal Panel erred by admitting fresh medical evidence and conducting a trial de novo on penalty rather than reviewing the Hearing Panel's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The penalty of disbarment was reinstated.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award which held that the employer was obligated under the collective agreement to pay the newly introduced Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review, following recent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement to be logical and reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs for two applications for judicial review and a hearing before a college appeal committee.

The Divisional Court held it had no jurisdiction to award costs for the college committee hearing.

The court found the costs claimed for the judicial review applications to be excessive and denied certain disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $1,000 for the first abandoned application and $4,000 for the second application, for a total of $5,000 all inclusive.

The respondent, Hamilton Police Service, sought costs following an appeal, submitting a draft bill of costs for $26,224.33.

After reviewing the written submissions of counsel, the Divisional Court fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $10,000 plus disbursements of $263.37 and GST.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her personal injury claim following a slip and fall near a bus stop.

At trial, the judge accepted the evidence of a bus driver over the appellant's testimony regarding the cause of the fall.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his credibility findings and in limiting cross-examination of the bus driver on a 'will say' statement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice regarding the cross-examination.

The plaintiff, a former franchisee, sued the franchisor for failing to renew its lease.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), which was granted by the motions judge.

The plaintiff appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that the defendants had unreasonably delayed in bringing the motion and that the order would stifle a valid claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the defendants had good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets years before bringing the motion, and that the motions judge failed to appreciate the evidence of delay.

The order for security for costs was set aside.

The applicant's solicitor appealed an order requiring him to personally pay $1,000 in costs for unreasonably refusing an adjournment after serving a late affidavit.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the solicitor paid the costs and advised the court that the appeal was purely academic.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding no public interest reason to hear a purely academic appeal regarding an interlocutory costs order in private litigation.

The appellants (defendants) were successful in their appeal, resulting in the plaintiffs' statement of claim being struck out as an abuse of process and the action dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs, and the court received written submissions.

The appellants sought $42,302.66 on a partial indemnity scale, while the respondents argued for a reduced amount of $12,000 to $14,000.

The Divisional Court found no reason to reduce the amounts claimed, noting the action involved serious allegations of fraud, conspiracy, dishonesty, and malice.

Costs were fixed at $42,302.66, payable by the respondents to the appellants.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance regarding supplemental unemployment benefits.

The collective agreement provided top-up benefits during parental leave to adoptive parents but not to biological parents.

The union argued this violated the Human Rights Code and s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitration board's decision, finding that the provision responded to the special needs of adoptive parents and did not undermine the human dignity of biological parents, who are not a historically disadvantaged group.

The application was dismissed.