John G. J. O'Driscoll

The successful respondents in an appeal sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale or, alternatively, on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellants opposed the scale and the quantum of fees claimed.

The Divisional Court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs and held that the fees claimed on the partial indemnity scale were excessive.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 for fees plus disbursements and GST.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which revoked his certificate of registration for sexual abuse and professional misconduct.

The appellant argued for a 'spousal exemption' to the sexual abuse provisions and claimed the legislation was applied retroactively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the concurrent doctor-patient and sexual relationships met the definition of sexual abuse, no spousal exemption existed, and the legislation was not applied retroactively.

The applicants abandoned their applications for judicial review one week prior to the scheduled hearing, shortly after receiving the responding union's factum.

The parties agreed to make written submissions on costs.

The union sought over $15,000, while the applicants argued for significantly lower amounts.

Noting that there was no hearing but acknowledging the union's preparation of a factum, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the union at $6,500 for fees, plus disbursements and GST.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of an Order in Council removing him from office following a public inquiry.

The inquiry commissioner found that the applicant had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, including denying due process and abusing judicial power in three separate incidents.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the commissioner's findings, concluding that it was reasonable to hold a justice of the peace to the same high standard of conduct as a judge.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant company appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission which found that the company had waived solicitor-client privilege over certain legal opinions by providing them to its auditor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that statutory disclosure of privileged documents to an auditor constitutes a limited waiver for audit purposes only, not an absolute waiver.

Furthermore, the auditor's subsequent unauthorized disclosure of the documents to Commission staff did not waive the privilege, as the auditor lacked the authority to do so.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting a non-suit and dismissing his claims for false arrest, unlawful search, and Charter breaches against the police.

The appellant had been arrested for possession of property obtained by crime after police observed him with multiple bicycles and parts late at night.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded that the appellant's own evidence established the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, meaning no prima facie case was made out.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Chief of Police and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) regarding a complaint against two police officers.

The Chief of Police declined to deal with the complaint because it was filed more than six months after the incident.

The applicant then requested a review by OCCPS, but missed the 30-day statutory deadline.

OCCPS determined it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, confirming that legislative amendments removed OCCPS's discretion to extend the deadline and finding the Chief's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicants, foster parents of a child since birth, sought judicial review of a Director's decision confirming the Halton Children's Aid Society's decision to place the child for adoption with another family.

The applicants argued the process was procedurally unfair due to excessive delay and the admission of late expert evidence, and that the removal of the child violated their section 7 Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the delay was necessary to determine the child's best interests, the applicants had no section 7 rights as foster parents, and the Director's decision was reasonable based on the evidence of the child's attachment to the adoptive family.

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

The misconduct involved nine separate incidents of careless use of a firearm and one incident of showing a scrotum piercing to a female officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer had considered the appropriate factors, including the gravity of the misconduct, employment history, and rehabilitation prospects, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range.

The applicant police association sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the employer's policy of transferring disabled uniformed officers into civilian bargaining unit positions to accommodate them.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding it unreasonable and incorrect in law.

The Court held that the arbitrator failed to properly apply the individualized duty to accommodate, as he did not first consider whether the specific officers could be accommodated within their own bargaining unit without undue hardship before infringing on the civilian collective agreement rights.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of an order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal requiring her to vacate the premises.

The tenant had orally agreed to move out but subsequently changed her mind and remained in possession, prompting the landlord to obtain an ex parte order.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal raised no question of law as required by s. 196 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, noting that s. 188 dictates substance over form.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the certificate of stay was set aside.

The tenants appealed an eviction order issued by the Tribunal based on noise complaints.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was based entirely on findings of fact regarding the tenants' interference with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants.

As appeals under the Tenant Protection Act are confined to questions of law, the court quashed the appeal, reinstated the eviction order, and set aside the automatic stay.

The appellant abandoned an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Small Claims Court, which is not permitted under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents sought costs for the abandoned appeal.

The court found the appeal was a stalling tactic with no legal basis and awarded the respondents costs of $1,687.57 for legal advice and $300.00 for attendance.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing his complaint against his union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration, and denying reconsideration.

The OLRB had dismissed the complaint due to a 16-year delay and prejudice to the respondents, rejecting the applicant's medical explanation.

The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decisions were not patently unreasonable and dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias and Charter discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The Toronto Police Services Board applied for judicial review of an arbitration award that ordered compensation to a police officer whose promotion was deferred due to pending disciplinary charges that were later withdrawn.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, which balanced the employer's right to defer promotion with the officer's right to be made whole upon exoneration, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government.

The action alleged negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office arising from the government's decision to discontinue entering into Special Needs Agreements for profoundly disabled children.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding it was plain and obvious the negligence claim could not succeed.

The court held that the statement of claim disclosed arguable causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The applicant brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a judgment pending appeal.

The parties consented to adjourn the motion but disagreed on the costs of the adjournment.

The respondents sought over $63,000 in costs incurred investigating the applicant's transfer of assets to family members, which allegedly rendered him judgment-proof.

The court fixed the costs of the adjournment at $20,000 payable forthwith by the applicant.

The applicant doctor brought a motion before the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a motions judge's order.

The motions judge had dismissed the applicant's entire judicial review application, even though only a motion for an injunction and mandatory order regarding a College investigation was before him.

The Divisional Court agreed that the motions judge was correct to refuse the injunction and mandatory order, but amended the formal order to clarify that only the motion, not the underlying judicial review application, was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order varying child support, arguing errors in income calculation, the inclusion of a collapsed pension in income, and the costs award.

The respondent mother cross-appealed the retroactive reduction of child support.

Applying the standard of review from Hickey v. Hickey, the Divisional Court found no error in principle or significant misapprehension of evidence by the motion judge.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a nursing student with cerebral palsy, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent college's Student Appeals Committee upholding her failing grade in a clinical course.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Committee failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, refused to hear her expert witness on discrimination and accommodation, and refused to allow a court reporter to record the proceedings.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Committee's failure to provide reasons for its decision and its refusal to hear the expert witness constituted a denial of procedural fairness.

The decision was set aside and remitted to a new panel.