13 total
The court awarded the successful plaintiff $14,500 in partial indemnity costs following a defamation summary judgment.
The court fixed partial indemnity costs following successful summary judgment motions.
The defendant's motion was unsuccessful, while the plaintiff's was successful, with findings that the defendant's words were untrue, unwithdrawn, and demonstrated malice.
The plaintiff sought elevated costs, citing the defendant's unreasonable conduct and bad faith, and more favourable settlement offers.
The court found no unreasonableness or bad faith in the defendant's cross-motion or delay, and the plaintiff's settlement offers were not Rule 49 compliant.
However, considering the defendant's demonstrated malice and failure to apologize, the court awarded reasonably generous partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.
Child support Application decision
The Applicant, Devaki MacDonald, sought substantial indemnity costs following her success on a mobility motion heard on June 9, 2016.
The Respondent, Andrew Durrant, did not provide responding costs materials.
The court considered the discretionary factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the reasonableness of the Applicant's counsel's rates and time spent, and the principle of indemnity.
The court fixed substantial indemnity costs at $19,000.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, and ordered them to be paid forthwith by the Respondent, enforceable by FRO as child support.
Summary judgment Motion granted
The plaintiff, a former municipal councillor, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, a current municipal councillor, regarding statements made in an email.
Both parties moved for summary judgment.
The court found the defendant's statements, which alleged the plaintiff disclosed confidential information from a closed council session and acted with a conflict of interest, were defamatory, false, and malicious.
The court rejected the defendant's defences of qualified privilege and fair comment, finding no reciprocity or duty to communicate the defamatory information and that the statements were assertions of fact, not opinion.
The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendant's cross-motion was dismissed.
General damages of $30,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
The court dismissed an inmate's habeas corpus application challenging an involuntary security transfer as moot.
The applicant, a federal inmate, sought habeas corpus to challenge an involuntary transfer from minimum to maximum security in 2015, alleging procedural unfairness and unreasonableness by Correctional Services of Canada (CSC).
Prior to filing the application, the applicant was voluntarily transferred from maximum to medium security in 2016.
The court found the application moot because the challenged 2015 decision had been superseded by the 2016 voluntary transfer, which reflected a current assessment of his security risk and did not deprive him of residual liberty.
Furthermore, the court found the 2015 involuntary transfer decision to be both procedurally fair and reasonable, as CSC met its disclosure obligations under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, providing the inmate with a summary of the case and an opportunity to respond, while properly withholding confidential information for safety and security reasons.
The application was dismissed.
Application challenging the validity of an Endangered Species Act regulation dismissed.
The applicants, two environmental organizations, brought an application challenging the validity of Ontario Regulation 176/13 made under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.
They argued the Minister failed to meet a mandatory condition precedent under s. 57(1) of the Act and that the regulation was inconsistent with the Act's purposes.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister had properly formed the required opinion that the regulation would not jeopardize the survival of species at risk, and that the regulation's balancing of environmental protection with economic considerations was consistent with the broader purposes of the Act.
Appeal allowed on consent and matter remitted to the Board for a new hearing.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Both parties agreed the appeal should be allowed because the hearing panel improperly determined the appellant was not a victim of crime and failed to conduct the requisite analysis under s. 17(1) of the Act.
The appellant requested the court substitute its opinion for the Board's regarding compensation, citing distrust of the Board.
The Divisional Court held it is not equipped to make the necessary factual findings and remitted the matter to the Board for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.
Judicial review granted; racing commission's penalty decision unreasonable for misclassifying drug without explanation.
The applicant sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission for a positive drug test involving furosemide.
The Divisional Court found that the Commission erred by treating furosemide as a Class V drug without explanation, as it is not classified as such in the Uniform Classification Guidelines.
The court held the penalty decision was unreasonable, granted the application, and remitted the matter to the Commission for re-determination.
Unequal division of net family property denied as husband's failed business venture was not reckless depletion.
The parties separated after a 41-year marriage.
The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, arguing that the applicant recklessly depleted assets through a failed business venture and undisclosed debt refinancing.
The court dismissed the claim for unequal division, finding that the applicant's business decisions, while poor, were not made in bad faith or with the intention to deplete assets.
The court ordered the respondent to pay the agreed equalization payment of $34,301.09, reimbursed the applicant for certain carrying costs, and set the terms for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.
Appeal allowed in part to impute $30,000 annual income to respondent for a prior 18-month period.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child and spousal support, arguing the trial judge erred by not imputing income to the respondent for the period between February 2008 and August 2009.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the respondent had failed to pursue available income sources such as CPP, long-term disability, and RRSP withdrawals during that time.
The Court imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the respondent for that period and ordered a recalculation of support.
The appeal regarding the tax treatment of the spousal support set-off was dismissed.
Judicial review of FSCO decision denying statutory accident benefits dismissed; no procedural unfairness or unreasonableness found.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's dismissal of her claims for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The applicant argued procedural unfairness, errors in calculating income for income replacement benefits, and failure to consider a treatment plan.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in fact or law, nor any breach of natural justice.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Class action certified; arguable that City owes duty of care to tenants regarding rent reduction notices.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto.
The proposed class action alleged the City was negligent in failing to send statutory notices of rent reduction to tenants of rooming houses after municipal property taxes were reduced.
The motions judge had found it plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care to the tenants.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that based on the statutory scheme and the specific relationship created by the Parkdale Pilot Project, it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care.
The proceeding was certified as a class action.
Judicial review of OHIP payment suspension dismissed for undue delay and lack of merit.
The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP to suspend his medical fee payments due to his failure to cooperate with a statutorily mandated inspection of his records.
The application was brought nearly ten years after the decision.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application for undue delay, finding the delay inexplicable and prejudicial to the respondent due to the destruction of the applicant's records.
The court also held that, on the merits, the General Manager's decision to suspend payments was reasonable and authorized by the Health Insurance Act.
Application for judicial review of interlocutory police discipline decision dismissed as premature.
The applicant, a police officer facing disciplinary proceedings, sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's interlocutory decision dismissing his motion to stay the charges for abuse of process and lack of jurisdiction.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the applicant should proceed through the statutory appeal process after a final decision.
The Court also addressed the jurisdictional argument on its merits, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably and correctly interpreted the Police Services Act in concluding that an investigation need not be entirely completed before a notice of hearing is issued.
