J. MacDonald

The appellant police officer was found guilty of neglect of duty for delaying a detainee's right to counsel for 90 minutes after the initial justification for the delay (officer safety) had passed.

The Hearing Officer imposed a reprimand, but the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services substituted a six-month reduction in rank.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable, as it failed to consider mitigating factors and wrongly concluded that a reprimand was an unavailable penalty for a Charter breach.

The appeal was allowed and the reprimand restored.

The appellant tenant brought a motion to set aside an order that had set aside his Certificate of Perfection and dismissed his appeal from a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Divisional Court found no basis to set aside the order regarding the Certificate of Perfection, as it was filed late.

Although the motion judge erred in dismissing the appeal for improper perfection while a motion to extend time was pending, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal because the appeal raised only factual issues, contrary to the requirement under s. 196 of the Tenant Protection Act that appeals be restricted to questions of law alone.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought declaratory or prerogative relief regarding whether she had elected to receive WSIB benefits and whether such an election was valid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal had not yet decided these issues.

The Court emphasized that the Board should provide election forms to workers as soon as it becomes aware of an illness to ensure they seek legal advice promptly.

The appellants appealed a Motions Court Judge's decision refusing to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The respondents had claimed a remedial constructive trust based on alleged unconscionable conduct following the termination of a contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and vacated the CPL, finding no evidence of unconscionable conduct by the appellants and noting that the respondents' claim was essentially for breach of contract rather than an equitable cause of action.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the Employment Standards Act awarding the respondent employee vacation pay for his last two years of employment.

The employer argued the employee had ample down time during the winter months to take vacation in lieu of pay.

The adjudicator found the employee worked year-round and was entitled to vacation pay.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, found no palpable or overriding error in the adjudicator's findings, and dismissed the application.

The appellant, a professional engineer, appealed the dismissal of his action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and breach of statutory duty against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and its employees.

The trial judge dismissed the action on the basis of statutory immunity under s. 45(1) of the Professional Engineers Act, finding the respondents acted in good faith.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions on good faith or her refusal to extend the time for a jury notice.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in awarding solicitor and client costs, and reduced the costs to a party-and-party basis.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their application for a declaration that the insured was dead under section 208 of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge had relied on hearsay evidence from an investigator regarding statements made by the insured's sister, which suggested the insured had planned to fake his death.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by using this hearsay evidence for a truth purpose without properly applying the principled approach to hearsay.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal establishing a pricing formula for live chickens in Ontario and ordering the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend its regulations to implement the formula.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Farm Products Marketing Act to establish the pricing formula, fix the starting price, and direct the Commission to amend its regulations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a probationary police constable, sought judicial review of the police services board's decision to terminate his employment.

He argued the board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to require witnesses to give evidence under oath or allow cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under section 44(3) of the Police Services Act, the board was acting as an employer exercising an administrative function.

The Court held that the board was not clearly wrong or unreasonable in exercising its discretion not to take evidence under oath or permit cross-examination, given the circumstances and the information already before it.