J.R.R. Jennings

The mother appealed a trial decision that transferred sole custody of her two children to the father due to her relentless campaign of parental alienation.

The trial judge had severely restricted the mother's access, making it conditional on her engaging with a specified expert for counselling and assessment, and ordered a review of access after six months.

The mother also appealed a $160,000 costs award made against her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had jurisdiction to order a review, did not impermissibly delegate access determination, and properly exercised her discretion in awarding costs given the mother's bad faith conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Grievance Board, which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear his wrongful dismissal grievance because he had not been employed by the Crown for at least 12 months.

The applicant argued that new legislation, which removed the 12-month requirement for employees not on probation, should apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that jurisdiction is a substantive matter and the former legislative provisions governed the applicant's crystallized rights at the time of his dismissal.

The City of Toronto appealed a trial judge's decision regarding liability for a slip and fall in a municipal laneway.

The City argued the trial judge erred in assessing the standard of maintenance, failing to apply the strict notice period for sidewalks under the Municipal Act, and failing to find contributory negligence.

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

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding the respondent to be a person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the ODSPA.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by accepting the respondent's self-assessment of his emotional disability and restrictions in daily living activities without the mandatory medical verification by a prescribed professional.

The decision was set aside and the matter remitted for a re-hearing before a different Tribunal member.