Archie Campbell

The appellants, developers of a residential subdivision, appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision requiring them to pay $568,391 as their proportionate share of municipal infrastructure costs previously front-ended by a neighbouring developer.

The appellants argued that the Development Charges Act, 1989 prohibited the imposition of such charges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while the Act prohibited imposing a charge by way of agreement, it did not prohibit the OMB from imposing the charge directly as a condition of draft plan approval under section 51(25) of the Planning Act to ensure a fair and equitable allocation of infrastructure costs.

The respondent's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesman was revoked due to odometer tampering.

He later re-applied for registration, but the Registrar proposed to refuse the application based on his past misconduct, including criminal fraud convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal restored his registration, accepting his argument that the fraud was due to bad paperwork and a dishonest employee.

The Registrar appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred fundamentally by allowing the respondent to relitigate the essential element of criminal intent from his fraud convictions.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was restored.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a tribunal decision.

The Divisional Court adjourned the hearing, directing the parties to provide the complete record of the respondent's prior criminal appeal and written submissions on whether the tribunal impermissibly allowed a collateral attack on those criminal convictions.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding actual damage to vehicles.

The Divisional Court rejected the proposed evidence, applying the Sengmueller test.

The court found the evidence was not relevant to the core issue of non-disclosure of acquisition documents, was readily available at the time of the original hearing, and would not have affected the tribunal's result.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to quash one of their grounds of appeal.

The tribunal had previously granted leave to appeal a Director's order regarding nickel contamination in soil on only one of eight proposed grounds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to limit the scope of the appeal to the ground on which leave was granted.

The court also held that the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory procedural decision, and that the tribunal's decision was reasonable.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence was readily available at the time of the original hearing and that the tenant had chosen not to call available witnesses.

Furthermore, the court held that the fresh evidence would not have been conclusive of the issue, applying the test from Sengmueller v. Sengmueller.

The appellant garnishee appealed two related Small Claims Court decisions regarding garnishment of debts owed to two debtors.

In the Ali matter, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the garnishee's representative had acknowledged the debt during informal proceedings, supporting the trial judge's implicit finding.

In the Seepersaud matter, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a rehearing, as there was no evidentiary basis or acknowledgement of a debt by the garnishee.

The defendant appealed a Master's order dismissing an application to appoint a litigation guardian and brought a motion to stay the order pending appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the psychiatric evidence was vague and failed to establish a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs due to the defendant's history of procedural delay.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the sufficiency of settlement documents and compliance with regulations prior to the commencement of litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge correctly applied established legal principles to uncontested facts and that the proposed appeal raised no question of general public importance.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant moved for a stay pending the hearing of his application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the application was essentially an attempt to appeal on the facts, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and there was a four-month delay in bringing the application.

The appellant private school appealed a trial judgment awarding $8,800 in damages to the respondents for the expulsion of their eight-year-old daughter without notice or a hearing.

The school argued the trial judge based the decision on a breach of an implied contractual term of natural justice, which was not pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations of procedural unfairness were central to the dispute from the beginning and were sufficiently pleaded in the context of a breach of fiduciary duty, meaning the school knew the case it had to meet.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order and the subsequent refusal of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to re-open a review hearing.

The tenant had failed to attend the initial review hearing because he was hospitalized for psychiatric care.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's refusal to consider the tenant's medical inability to attend constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Court extended the time to appeal the original order, set aside the order denying the review request, and ordered a rehearing.

The appellant appealed from a Master's order dismissing a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Master found the appellant moved in a reasonable time and had a potential defence, but lacked a plausible explanation for the default and that it was equitable to let the judgment stand.

The Divisional Court held that reasonable notice was required before default judgment was signed, given the overall settlement was a fresh step.

The appeal was allowed and the default judgment set aside, conditional on the appellant paying $3,000 in costs thrown away and paying $15,000 into court.

The appellant appealed a decision of a Master in a construction lien matter.

The central issue was whether a subsequent project constituted a new contract or an amendment to an earlier contract within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court held that this determination is a pure question of fact.

Finding no demonstrated error in principle and noting that there was evidence to support the Master's conclusion that it was a new contract, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal a discretionary costs judgment awarded after the case was removed from the trial list due to the plaintiffs' failure to produce relevant documents.

The court found that the costs order was amply supported by uncontradicted evidence and reflected a careful analysis of costs thrown away.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,500.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding alleged delays in stock trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to show a genuine issue for trial.

The appellant relied on conclusory statements of fact and belief rather than presenting specific evidence of delay and consequent loss.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument regarding restricted cross-examination as a collateral attack on the judgment.

The appellant appealed an order reducing his child support arrears and imputing an income of $39,000 to him.

He argued that his actual income as a bingo caller was much lower than his previous income as a meat cutter, and that the motions judge erred in imputing the higher amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the affidavit evidence provided an ample basis for the motions judge's finding of underemployment and the imputed income amount.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario suspending its licence.

The appellant argued that the regulatory hearing was barred by res judicata, double jeopardy, and abuse of process following a quasi-criminal acquittal, and that translation difficulties led to a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulatory jurisdiction is separate from the quasi-criminal prosecution, Charter s. 11(h) does not apply to regulatory proceedings, and no unfairness or translation difficulty was established.

The minority shareholder applicant brought an oppression application under the Business Corporations Act after being dismissed from the respondent corporation.

The shareholders' agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause and a specific mechanism for valuing and redeeming the shares of a departing employee.

The motions judge allowed the applicant's motion to have the dispute heard in court rather than by arbitration, relying on the Weber principle to avoid a potential deprivation of ultimate remedy.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the decision, holding that the Weber principle does not generally apply to voluntary private arbitration agreements and that the parties must be held to their freely chosen dispute resolution mechanism.

The appellant, the Attorney General of Canada, appealed an order requiring it to respond to interrogatories and provide particulars of its legal position in a complex action brought by the respondent band.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to be examined on its legal position to focus the issues and prevent surprise at trial.

The court found that the word 'matter' in the rules governing discovery is broad enough to include a party's position on a legal issue.