D. Edwards

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, costs were fixed at $10,000 payable to the successful respondent.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision confirming a work assignment to a competing union.

The Board had found that the factor of economy and efficiency favoured the competing union for scaffolding tending work.

The Divisional Court dismissed preliminary objections that the application was moot or premature.

On the merits, the Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, as it was supported by evidence in the record, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed the revocation of his license by the Discipline Committee after he provided dental hygiene treatment to his wife.

The Committee found this constituted professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code, which mandates license revocation for sexual abuse of a patient, defined to include sexual relations.

The appellant argued the mandatory revocation and public registry notation violated his and his wife's rights under sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no section 7 violation as there is no constitutional right to practice a profession, and no section 12 violation as the mandatory revocation and registry notation did not constitute cruel and unusual treatment.

The court noted the harshness of the result but held it was bound by the legislation as the government had not yet passed a proposed spousal exemption regulation for dental hygienists.

The appellant brought motions to set aside the orders of a motion judge, who had dismissed its motions to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of its Small Claims Court appeals.

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with a previous order requiring it to order full trial transcripts.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's decision, rejecting the self-represented appellant's argument that she misunderstood her obligations or was denied a fair hearing.

The motions were dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an application for certification.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought reconsideration by the Board under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the conflicting Board decisions raised important policy issues regarding the interpretation of its home statute, and that reconsideration offered an adequate alternative remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as premature.

The moving party sought an adjournment of a request for reconsideration on the basis that transcripts from the cross-examination of two affiants were not yet available.

The respondent objected, arguing the affidavits were irrelevant and the moving party had not moved expeditiously.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondent, finding that the affidavits in question addressed issues that were either already resolved or irrelevant to the reconsideration request.

The request for an adjournment was dismissed.

The applicant's employment was terminated and his union took the matter to arbitration.

After an inordinate delay, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement but denied compensation for lost wages.

The union, relying on legal advice, declined to seek judicial review of the award.

The applicant sought standing to bring his own application for judicial review, which was denied by a motions judge.

On a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to vary that decision, the court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the applicant did not fall within any of the exceptions to the rule of union exclusivity.

The appellants appealed an order finding they acted oppressively toward the respondent, a 10% minority shareholder in a landlord corporation, by leasing property to their own company at below-market rent.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of oppression regarding the failure to pay fair market rent after the initial lease term expired in 2010.

However, the court set aside the application judge's finding that the respondent reasonably expected triple rent for overholding, and reversed remedial orders directed at a non-party tenant corporation and for the period prior to 2010, finding that cash payments made to the respondent's principal had alleviated any unfair prejudice during that time.