John G. J. O'Driscoll

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that prevented it from unilaterally disbanding its full-time fire department and terminating the firefighters' employment.

The municipality had passed a by-law to replace the full-time department with volunteers, arguing it had the authority to terminate the expired collective agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the collective agreement remained in effect due to its specific terms and the statutory freeze provisions under the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Act.

The court confirmed the municipality did not have the unilateral right to annul the collective agreement or bypass the statutory collective bargaining regime.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an arbitration award that ordered it to pay the respondent $5 million pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Arbitration Act and the parties' agreement, which explicitly prohibited appeals, barred the application.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to pursue any potential statutory appeal rights within the prescribed time limits.

On the merits, the court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was not patently unreasonable and the process was procedurally fair.

Following a judgment released on January 22, 2004, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The appellant sought costs of $6,778.50.

The respondent requested a no-costs order due to financial hardship but conceded the quantum was reasonable.

The Divisional Court found no reason to depart from the rule that costs follow the event and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant costs fixed at $6,778.50.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal an order for security for costs, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $18,788.66.

The court found the amount claimed to be excessive and declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $5,000 plus disbursements and GST.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the provincial government alleging that a child's death in a hospital emergency department was caused by government funding cuts and restructuring decisions.

The plaintiffs claimed negligence, abuse of public office, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The government appealed a motions judge's refusal to strike these claims.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the statement of claim, finding that the government owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiffs, the funding decisions were protected policy decisions, and the elements of abuse of public office and breach of fiduciary duty were not properly pleaded.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from the refusal to certify a class action, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff argued for a no-costs or reduced-costs order based on impecuniosity, but the court noted the plaintiff was funded by an environmental organization.

The court found the defendant's bill of costs reasonable given the massive size of the potential claim ($750 million) and fixed costs at $60,149.08 payable forthwith.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding he acted as an unregistered adviser and imposing sanctions, including a $300,000 costs order, for failing to disclose conflicts of interest while recommending securities at investment seminars.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was reasonableness for the merits and public interest findings.

The court upheld the Commission's findings that the appellant was in the business of advising and that his failure to disclose conflicts was contrary to the public interest.

However, the court found the Commission's process for determining the $300,000 costs award was procedurally unfair and remitted the costs issue back to the Commission.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering rent reductions for two tenants due to their inability to use their balconies during a restoration project.

The Tribunal had rejected the landlord's proven costs and instead based the reduction on the 'value' of the balconies, awarding a 10% rent abatement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal breached natural justice by adopting a new interpretation of the regulation and calculating value without giving the parties an opportunity to call evidence or make submissions on that issue.

The matter was remitted to a different Tribunal member.

An erratum and addendum was issued on consent of all counsel to correct a date in paragraph 69 of the court's reasons released on June 21, 2004.

The date 'April 1, 2002' was deleted and replaced with 'April 1, 2001'.

The Ministry of the Attorney General brought an application for judicial review regarding a freedom of information request.

During the hearing, the Divisional Court panel asked counsel whether the requester should be permitted to bring an application under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act that would breach a confidentiality undertaking previously given by his lawyer during negotiations.

The court adjourned the application to allow counsel time to prepare an answer to this pivotal question.

The applicant, a physician previously disciplined for professional misconduct, brought an application for judicial review challenging a College by-law regarding the public availability of disciplinary information.

In this motion, the applicant sought an interim order banning the publication of his name and allowing him to use initials in the court record.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the disciplinary information had been public for over 13 years and there was no risk to the administration of justice or need to protect societal values of superordinate importance that would justify an exception to the open court principle.

The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law applied for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a dispute between a school board and a special education tribunal.

The existing parties either consented, took no position, or did not oppose the application.

The court granted leave to intervene to assist by way of argument on whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to order a placement not set out in the school board's special education plan.

The self-represented appellant tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal.

The respondent landlord argued the evidence was not fresh but rather evidence the tenant had unsuccessfully tried to adduce before the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence did not meet the established test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal.

The tenant gave notice to terminate his residential tenancy, and the landlord subsequently accepted a rental application from a new tenant.

The tenant later requested to delay his departure, which the landlord refused, obtaining an ex parte order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant's motion to set aside the order was denied by the Tribunal.

The tenant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, misapprehension of fact, or wrongful exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in refusing an adjournment or denying discretionary relief.

The parents appealed a trial judge's order making their child a Crown ward without access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the child would be at physical risk in the parents' care and that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that access would impair the child's future opportunities for a permanent and stable placement through adoption.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision finding that the union engaged in bad faith bargaining and imposing a remedy that affected the applicant's 'Me Too' collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness, and found that the OLRB had ample evidence and authority to fashion the remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiffs initially succeeded on a motion to bifurcate a class proceeding trial.

The defendants obtained leave to appeal that order.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs abandoned the appeal, proposing that no costs be awarded.

The defendants rejected this proposal and brought a motion to fix costs for the initial motion, the leave to appeal motion, the abandoned appeal, and the current motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, awarding them costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $17,971.75.

The York Catholic District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision awarding Bernard Homes Ltd. and Crestvalley Homes Ltd. disturbance damages for lost builders' profits and solicitor-client costs following an expropriation.

The developers cross-appealed the OMB's dismissal of claims for lost developers' profits, reduction in land value, and lost executive time.

The Divisional Court allowed the School Board's appeal, setting aside the award for lost builders' profits and the solicitor-client costs order, finding that anticipated profits are not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The developers' cross-appeal was dismissed.

The father and paternal grandparents appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of four children without access.

The children had been apprehended due to the parents' substance abuse and domestic violence, and the grandparents were unable to care for them due to their high needs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the parents and grandparents were incapable of providing adequate care and that an access order would impair the children's opportunities for a permanent placement.

The Government of Ontario applied for judicial review of the Fifth Triennial Report of the Provincial Judges Remuneration Commission, which recommended a 21% salary increase for provincial judges.

The Ontario Conference of Judges brought a separate application for an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Government to implement the recommendations.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commission's recommendations are subject to judicial review on a standard of patent unreasonableness, the Government's application must be dismissed due to its failure to exhaust internal reconsideration remedies under the Framework Agreement and its excessive delay in bringing the application.

The court granted the Ontario Conference of Judges' application and ordered the Government to implement the recommendations retroactively.