John G. J. O'Driscoll

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $20,580 in damages for a defective motor vehicle.

The trial judge found a fundamental breach of a collateral contract to provide a safe vehicle, entitling the respondent to rescission.

The Divisional Court upheld the damages calculation, noting an equitable adjustment was made for the respondent's use of the vehicle.

The respondent's cross-appeal for leave to appeal costs was dismissed.

The court declined to award costs for the appeal, citing disproportionate fees and the respondent's unreasonable refusal of a settlement offer.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision finding it bound by a provincial collective agreement with the respondent union.

The OLRB had determined that a 1998 memorandum of agreement signed by the employer ratified earlier agreements and waived any right to challenge their validity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OLRB's determination of union representation rights fell within its specialized jurisdiction and was protected by privative clauses.

Applying the patently unreasonable standard of review, the court found no basis to interfere with the OLRB's decision.

The tenants appealed an eviction order issued by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal after the male tenant verbally assaulted and threatened the building superintendents while intoxicated.

The tenants argued the Tribunal erred by admitting an unsworn statement from a witness who was not summoned to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no defect in the notice of termination and holding that the unsworn statement was admissible at the Tribunal's discretion under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tenant Protection Act.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing her claims for special damages and loss of income due to her failure to fulfill undertakings from an examination for discovery.

By the time of the appeal, the outstanding undertakings had been fulfilled.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Master's order, finding that the plaintiff's conduct was not contumelious and did not cause serious prejudice to the defendant, and that denying her a day in court would allow form to triumph over substance.

The defendant franchisor appealed an order certifying a class proceeding brought by franchisees regarding the distribution of rebates and allowances under a standard form franchise agreement.

The franchisor argued that the representative plaintiffs could not fairly and adequately represent the class and had a conflict of interest because they were not indebted to the franchisor, unlike other franchisees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the representative plaintiffs could fairly and adequately represent the class and that their lack of indebtedness did not create a conflict of interest on the common issues.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee had imposed a one-year suspension, with seven months running concurrently with a prior employer suspension, and the remaining five months suspended on conditions.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Committee's decision not to revoke the teacher's certificate was reasonable.

The Court dismissed the appeal but varied the wording of the penalty to clarify the five-month conditional suspension.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent teacher.

The parties were unable to agree on the quantum of fixed costs awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale following a previous decision.

The respondent claimed $25,580 based on a draft bill of costs totalling $32,822.

The applicant argued the claimed hours were excessive and suggested $8,000.

The court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $17,500 for fees and $580 for disbursements, plus applicable GST.

The applicant, a lobbyist and lawyer, sought judicial review of a Commissioner's order in a public inquiry.

The Commissioner ordered that sealed boxes of the applicant's documents be reviewed by Commission counsel for relevance and potential solicitor-client privilege, with unresolved privilege claims to be determined by a Superior Court judge.

The applicant argued this procedure violated his Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the screening process minimally impaired solicitor-client privilege and that Commission counsel was not in an adversarial position.

The applicant sought an order under Rule 16.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with personal service of a Notice of Application for Judicial Review and Summonses on a Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and another individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Vice-Chair is immune from such process and the other individual made no decision amenable to judicial review.

The court directed the applicant to amend the title of proceedings if the application is to proceed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited and others for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, as well as the subsequent costs order.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed the claims to real property devaluation, abandoning health impairment claims.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the proposed class definition was arbitrary, individual issues would overwhelm common issues, and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court also upheld the costs award of $184,332.14 against the appellant, finding no error in the motion judge's application of costs principles under the Class Proceedings Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order of a motions judge who gave directions to an Assessment Officer regarding the assessment of costs.

The appellant argued the motions judge was functus officio and could not clarify that the respondents were entitled to non-tariff disbursements after the assessment had already commenced.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge retained jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure to implement and clarify his costs order, and was not varying it.

The respondent's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesman was revoked due to odometer tampering.

He later re-applied for registration, but the Registrar proposed to refuse the application based on his past misconduct, including criminal fraud convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal restored his registration, accepting his argument that the fraud was due to bad paperwork and a dishonest employee.

The Registrar appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred fundamentally by allowing the respondent to relitigate the essential element of criminal intent from his fraud convictions.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was restored.

The appellant appealed the Board's decision refusing to issue a liquor licence for its U-Brew business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable.

The Board properly interpreted the regulations in a broad, purposive manner in the interest of public safety and health, and was justified in refusing the licence under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act given the appellant's history of non-compliance.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying compensation for eviction-related moving expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction as the appeal did not raise a question of law under section 23 of the Compensation for Victims of Crimes Act.

Furthermore, the court held that the Board's factual finding that the expenses were unrelated to the subject incident was not patently unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

The appellant police service appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services that substituted a penalty of temporary demotion for dismissal.

The respondent police officer had pointed a loaded semi-automatic pistol at his partner in the detachment office.

The Hearing Officer ordered dismissal, finding the conduct so egregious that rehabilitation was not the controlling factor.

The Commission varied the penalty to demotion, citing rehabilitation and provocation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying a standard of reasonableness simpliciter, and reinstated the penalty of dismissal, holding that the Commission's decision was unreasonable given the extreme danger and impropriety of the officer's actions.

Mattamy applied for approval of a plan of subdivision that included laneways with widths of 10.5 metres.

The City of Toronto opposed assuming the laneways because they were substandard in width, proposing instead that they be privately owned.

Mattamy appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which stated a case to the Divisional Court to determine if it had jurisdiction to compel the City to assume the public lanes and municipal services against its wishes.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB is a statutory tribunal with no inherent jurisdiction and that neither the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, 2001, nor the Ontario Municipal Board Act conferred jurisdiction on the OMB to compel a municipality to assume roads or services.

Following the release of the court's reasons on the appeal, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The respondent College sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale of $48,362.24, or alternatively on a partial indemnity scale of $34,764.24.

The appellant proposed a costs award of $15,000.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $28,667.70 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which affirmed a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved an inappropriate relationship and harassment of a 16-year-old girl.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of reasonableness simpliciter to the Commission's decision.

The Court found no error in the Commission's treatment of the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments, evidentiary rulings, or the penalty imposed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Lawyer for Ontario (CLO) acted as litigation guardian and legal representative for a minor.

When the minor reached the age of majority, she requested her file.

The CLO treated the request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and refused to disclose portions of the file, claiming exemptions under s. 19 (Crown counsel litigation privilege) and s. 13 (advice to government).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Commissioner had standing to participate.

The Court dismissed the application, finding that the CLO is not 'Crown counsel' when acting for a minor and that s. 13 does not apply to advice given for the benefit of a private client.

The CLO's fiduciary duties to the client precluded withholding the file.

The appellant appealed an order for retroactive child support in the amount of $42,917.88 to the Divisional Court, characterizing it as an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its own jurisdiction and determined that the order was final, as it finally determined the issue of retroactivity for the years 1998 to 2001.

Because the order was final and for a single payment of more than $25,000, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was adjourned and transferred to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.