John G. J. O'Driscoll

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Commission had declined the referral because the employer had made a reasonable settlement offer that matched what the applicant could expect at a hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission was correct to consider the settlement offer in exercising its gatekeeper function under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order declining to strike the respondents' pleadings for failing to pay costs ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The motion judge had ruled that costs were payable at the conclusion of litigation, relying on previous case law.

However, the Court of Appeal clarified in a letter that its costs orders are payable forthwith unless endorsed otherwise.

The Divisional Court found this clarification constituted a conflicting decision and granted leave to appeal.

The respondent/defendant brought a cross-appeal regarding costs following a wrongful dismissal action under the Simplified Procedure Rule where the plaintiff sought $25,000.

The defendant had made a Rule 49 offer of one month's salary which the plaintiff did not accept.

The Divisional Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding no reason to deny the successful party its costs.

The court fixed costs for the trial, appeal, and cross-appeal at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award dismissing a grievance regarding holiday and overtime pay for work performed on Remembrance Day.

The arbitrator had concluded that there was an apparent contradiction between two articles of the collective agreement and interpreted them such that one applied to scheduled work and the other to unscheduled work.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's conclusion to be reasonable based on the record and dismissed the application, fixing costs at $5,000.

The appellant tenant appealed orders of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal concerning a residential property.

Prior to the appeal, the property was sold to a third party and the tenant relocated to a different property by agreement with the landlord.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal was moot because the tenant no longer inhabited the subject premises.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim.

The trial judge had found that a mutual release signed by the appellant was a complete defence to the action, as there was no evidence of coercion or unconscionability.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's decision to allow an amendment to the statement of defence at the opening of the trial.

The Divisional Court found no merit in either ground of appeal and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that failed to order the return of a converted vehicle or its value.

The trial judge's factual findings were unchallenged, and the respondent did not cross-appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant was entitled to the vehicle's return or its value of $6,500 at the time of conversion.

Since the respondent had sold the vehicle for salvage, the court varied the trial judgment to award the appellant $6,500 plus pre-judgment interest.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellant.

The appellant, a registered practical nurse, appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The Committee found that the appellant yelled at a cognitively impaired client and forced her to clean up her own faeces.

The appeal was based on the Committee's credibility findings and its refusal to re-open the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no palpable and overriding error in the credibility findings and no error in refusing to re-open the hearing.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board ordering that the respondent, a U.S. citizen whose husband held dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship, be enrolled in OHIP.

OHIP argued that because the husband was a Canadian citizen, he did not require an employment authorization, and therefore his spouse could not qualify for OHIP under the regulation requiring such authorization.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason why the husband could not be treated as a U.S. citizen for the purpose of qualifying under the regulation, thereby qualifying his wife.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ministry of Transportation's decision to suspend his driver's licence after he failed to meet the mandatory vision standards due to peripheral vision loss from brain tumor surgeries.

The Divisional Court held that the vision standard under O. Reg. 340/94 is a mandatory legislative requirement.

Because the applicant did not meet this standard, the Ministry had no discretion to issue a licence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a trial judgment that declared its mortgage void and granted priority to construction lien claimants.

The trial judge found the mortgage contravened the financial assistance provisions of the OBCA, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, and the Assignments and Preferences Act, as the mortgagor was insolvent and the mortgagee failed to conduct due diligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of legal principles.

A cross-appeal by a lien claimant regarding trial costs was allowed, and its costs were increased.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissing his claim for compensation.

The Board had found the appellant to be a vague, evasive, and inconsistent witness, and was unable to establish whether a crime of violence occurred or whether the appellant injured himself due to intoxication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's credibility findings were determinative and that no error of law was demonstrated.

The Court emphasized that the Board's decisions should not be subjected to the same strict scrutiny as judicial reasons.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that health care aides dispatched to a hospital were not 'casual' employees under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had focused on 'the work' performed rather than the 'position', concluding the work was performed on a regular and continuing basis.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its home statute was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant defendant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that revived the plaintiff's action, which had been dismissed five years prior due to the plaintiff's failure to attend trial.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motions judge's application of the test for dismissal for delay, rather than the test for setting aside a default judgment, was open to serious debate.

The court also found that clarifying the proper criteria for reviving moribund lawsuits was a matter of general public importance.

The applicant brought a motion to amend her application record in a judicial review proceeding by replacing previously filed affidavits with new ones.

The respondents opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that no authority permits a party to withdraw and replace an affidavit without consent.

The court directed the applicant to file the proposed affidavits in a sealed package with a notice of motion seeking leave to file further affidavits, leaving the determination of their admissibility to the panel hearing the judicial review.

The applicants brought applications for judicial review.

During the hearing, counsel for a third party requested an adjournment to review the filings and potentially seek intervenor status, as the third party had not been served.

The court granted the adjournment to allow the third party to decide whether to intervene.

The court also issued an interim order delaying the effective date of the third party's generic drug listings pending the resumption of the hearing.

The applicant generic drug manufacturers brought an urgent motion under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to proceed with an application for judicial review before a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The applicants alleged that a competitor had obtained an unfair advantage regarding the upcoming release of a new schedule for the drug formulary.

The court found that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm due to the permanent loss of market share associated with the first-to-market advantage, and that the prerequisites of s. 6(2) were met.

The application for judicial review was permitted to continue.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order compelling answers to discovery questions to the Divisional Court, characterizing it as a final order.

The defendants brought motions to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and the proper appeal route was to a Superior Court Judge.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that an order compelling discovery answers does not finally dispose of the substantive rights of the parties and is therefore interlocutory.

The appeal was quashed.

Seneca College brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order dismissing its application to dismiss the union's judicial review for undue delay.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge did not err in exercising his discretion to allow the judicial review to proceed despite a 19-month delay, as there was no actual prejudice to the college.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant school board sought an interim order under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to prohibit the Special Education Tribunal from proceeding with an appeal regarding a student's special education placement.

The student's mother, who was also a trustee of the school board, brought the appeal.

The school board argued the mother was in a conflict of interest and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order a placement not in the board's special education plan.

The Divisional Court found there were serious issues to be tried, that proceeding would cause irreparable harm by poisoning the atmosphere at the school board, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion for an interim order of prohibition was granted pending the outcome of the judicial review.