John G. J. O'Driscoll

The applicants, former foster parents, brought a motion to admit several affidavits on their judicial review application.

The respondents filed responding and reply affidavits.

The Divisional Court noted that the indiscriminate filing of affidavits likely offended the rule in Keeprite, but concluded it was not feasible to parse the inextricably woven evidence paragraph by paragraph.

The court admitted all affidavits, except for a portion of one affidavit that the applicants agreed to strike, noting it would separate the wheat from the chaff during the hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Highway Transport Board, which found that the respondent transport company was operating legally within the terms of its extra-provincial operating licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision was protected by a privative clause and was not patently unreasonable, nor was there any breach of natural justice or jurisdictional error.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal based on allegations of assault and causing a disturbance.

The tenant, who suffers from schizophrenia, argued the Tribunal failed to consider her disability and the landlord's duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

Due to an indecipherable audio recording, no transcript of the Tribunal hearing was available.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing, holding that the absence of a transcript made it impossible to determine whether the Tribunal had properly considered the tenant's disability and the landlord's duty to accommodate.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed an order of the Fitness to Practise Committee regarding the respondent nurse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee failed to fully consider the uncontroverted evidence of an addiction medicine specialist who assessed the respondent.

The Court set aside the Committee's order, declared the respondent 'incapacitated' under the Health Professions Procedural Code, and remitted the matter to the Committee to determine the appropriate order.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the Tenant Protection Act applied to a trailer park site rented by the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to exhaust their internal remedies, including a statutory right of appeal on a question of law and a right to request a review by the Tribunal.

The Court also found no error of law on the face of the record, as the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether the Act applied.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which found they were not entitled to compensation for a delayed closing under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants had signed an amendment to their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, substituting a new lot and setting a new closing date, which the builder met.

The Divisional Court found no error of fact or law in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding $1,000 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant airline sought judicial review of an interlocutory order from the Small Claims Court, which had dismissed its motion to dismiss the respondent's lost baggage claim based on the two-year limitation period in the Warsaw Convention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that the relief under the Judicial Review Procedure Act is discretionary and the applicant failed to show why the matter should not proceed to trial.

Supplementary reasons regarding a sealing order and costs following an appeal.

The court varied the broad sealing orders made by the Master and a single judge, restricting the sealing order to only the inadvertently disclosed privileged document, as there was no demonstrable prejudice to justify sealing the entire court file.

The court also fixed the successful plaintiff's costs of the motion for leave to appeal and the appeal at $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award substantial indemnity costs.

Professional Supply Canada Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited brought a motion to be added as intervenors and parties to an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged a variance granted by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority for the installation of direct gas-fired heaters at Ford Canada's facilities.

The court found that both moving parties had a significant financial interest in the proceedings, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and would provide a unique perspective.

The motion was granted, and the moving parties were added as respondents.

The defendant Terex Corporation sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its appeal of a Master's order.

The Master had granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add Terex as a defendant after the presumptive limitation period had expired, leaving the issue of discoverability for trial.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the order below and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, awarding agreed costs of $3,500 to the plaintiffs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action regarding allegedly defective Silzone-coated mechanical heart valves.

The defendants also sought leave to appeal an evidentiary ruling regarding expert affidavits filed in support of certification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The court held that the common issues, including the defendants' standard of care and the risks associated with the product, were appropriate for a class proceeding.

The applicant, a medical director, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board requiring him to attend before the Complaints Committee to be cautioned about using unqualified practitioners for Independent Medical Examinations.

The applicant argued a lack of procedural fairness and that the decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procedural fairness issues were not raised before the Board and that the Board had an evidentiary basis for its conclusions.

The defendant appealed a decision of a Superior Court judge that overturned a Master's order removing the plaintiff's solicitors of record.

The plaintiff's solicitors had inadvertently received a privileged opinion letter from the defendant's counsel.

Applying the test from Celanese Canada Inc., the Divisional Court found no real risk of material prejudice to the defendant, as the document could not be used at trial and the solicitor had not read the details.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a retired school principal, sought an order of prohibition to restrain the Ontario College of Teachers from proceeding with a discipline hearing against him.

The allegations related to his failure to properly screen and discipline a teacher who was later convicted of sexual offences.

The applicant had retired and cancelled his teaching certificate before the professional misconduct regulation came into effect.

The Divisional Court held that the College lacked jurisdiction to apply the professional misconduct regulation retrospectively to a former member who had resigned before the regulation was enacted, as the proceedings would be purely punitive rather than for public protection.

The application for prohibition was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's orders refusing to adjourn an upcoming inquest into a fatal ski accident and initiating an inquiry into a potential conflict of interest by the applicant's counsel.

The applicant also sought to remove the coroner based on a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the adjournment and bias, finding no jurisdictional error or fundamental failure of justice in the coroner's procedural rulings.

However, the court set aside the coroner's order directing the applicant's counsel to disclose information about his retainer, finding the coroner lacked sufficient material to initiate a conflict of interest inquiry on his own motion.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash the City of London's approval of a site plan for a townhouse development and a letter from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the UTRCA letter was not a reviewable decision and that the City Council's approval of the site plan was an intra vires municipal decision that was not patently unreasonable.

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

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a City Council decision granting site plan approval for a condominium development on environmentally sensitive lands near the Thames River.

The applicant attempted to introduce fresh affidavit evidence from experts and herself.

The court admitted portions of the expert evidence commenting on the revised site plan but rejected the applicant's affidavit.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that the City Council's decision was not patently unreasonable because the developer's environmental undertakings to the Ontario Municipal Board would be enforced by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to set aside a default judgment signed by the Registrar for over $2.5 million.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

In these dissenting reasons, Matlow J. would have allowed the appeal and set aside the default judgment, finding that the plaintiff's claim for increased construction contract costs was for unliquidated damages, not a liquidated sum, meaning the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to sign the judgment under Rule 19.04(1)(a).

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to award aggravated and punitive damages to a grievor who was unjustly dismissed.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review to the jurisdictional question.

Applying the exclusive jurisdiction model from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the Court held that the claim for damages arose inferentially from the collective agreement and was within the board's exclusive jurisdiction.

The application was granted, the board's decision on jurisdiction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the board to determine the damages claim.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to set aside a noting of default and a default judgment of over $2.5 million in a construction lien action.

The appellants argued the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to sign the default judgment because the claim was not for a liquidated demand.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the claim was for a liquidated demand supported by detailed invoices and a signed change order.

The court also upheld the motions judge's finding that the appellants had no arguable defence on the merits.