Katherine E. Swinton

The applicant landowners sought judicial review of the Minister's decision denying their request to 'bump-up' a class environmental assessment for a road-widening project to an individual environmental assessment.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair due to alleged errors in the environmental study report regarding stormwater management.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision was reasonable as it addressed the applicants' concerns by imposing conditions and relying on concurrent planning processes.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or legitimate expectations.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer refused further benefits.

The appellant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the refusal, but the adjudicator dismissed the application as being outside the two-year limitation period.

On appeal, the appellant argued the refusal was invalid because the insurer failed to provide copies of independent assessment reports to her treating practitioner, as required by section 37(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while the insurer breached section 37(5), this omission did not invalidate the clear and unequivocal refusal of benefits, and the limitation period had expired.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent and ordering him to pay $25,000 in arrears.

The tenant argued he owed no rent because the landlord had abandoned the property for six years, failed to maintain it, and that the claim was barred by laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly limited the tenant's repair claims to a one-year period under the Residential Tenancies Act and correctly held that the equitable doctrine of laches does not apply to statutory claims for rent arrears, which have no limitation period.

The appellant teacher appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for intimidating and brusque behaviour towards students, and the resulting sanctions including a six-month suspension.

She argued the Committee failed to consider that the complaint was a reprisal for her own workplace harassment claims, that the Committee was biased in qualifying a former vice-principal as a participant expert, and that the College lost jurisdiction due to delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee reasonably assessed credibility, correctly applied the participant expert doctrine, and imposed reasonable sanctions for the protection of the public despite the appellant's retirement.

The appellant, a care home operator, unlawfully evicted a non-verbal adult with severe autism without following the procedures in the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the tenant's reinstatement.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing procedural unfairness and that the Board lacked statutory authority to order reinstatement under s. 31(1)(f) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and holding that a broad interpretation of the Act's remedial provisions permitted the Board to order reinstatement to protect vulnerable tenants from unlawful eviction.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to certify a proposed class action against a medical clinic for infection control lapses during endoscopies.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that the appellant failed to establish an identifiable class of two or more people who suffered harm.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by requiring evidence of actual harm to multiple people at the certification stage, rather than just an objective basis to identify class members.

The matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the remaining certification criteria.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought judicial review of the respondent City's actions during the expropriation of restrictive covenants in its lease.

The applicant alleged a denial of procedural fairness regarding the timing of disclosure and the City's refusal to consent to an adjournment of the Hearing of Necessity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City met its statutory obligations and owed no broader common law duty of procedural fairness at that stage.

The Court also declined to rule on the validity of the expropriation, finding the application premature as the applicant had withdrawn from the statutory hearing process and no final expropriation decision had been made.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing her claims for equalization of net family properties and spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The motions judge had found she was not a spouse due to a foreign annulment.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order dismissed an equalization claim and there was no indication the amount in dispute was $50,000 or less.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Penny J. dated December 20, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,762.00.

The County sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the applicants' abandoned leave to appeal motion regarding the production of records from closed municipal meetings.

The applicants' appeal became moot after closed meeting investigators concluded the meetings were improperly closed, leading the County to release the records.

Although the court found the leave motion would likely have been unsuccessful, it exercised its discretion under Rule 37.09(3) to order no costs due to the County's actions in improperly closing the meetings.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving party, a non-party to the underlying action, sought leave to appeal a costs order made against him by the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the question of whether the trial judge erred in ordering costs payable by a non-party.

Costs of the motion for leave were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The employer brought three applications for judicial review of arbitration awards concerning the termination of the grievor's employment.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's declaration of redundancy was a disguised dismissal made in bad faith, and awarded the grievor net damages of $392,276, including $10,000 in moral damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the arbitrator's decisions on estoppel, the merits of the dismissal, and the calculation of damages (including the contingency factor and mitigation) to be reasonable.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The injunction sought to prohibit the respondent from challenging the validity of the appellants' U.S. patent, relying on a 'no-challenge' clause in a prior settlement agreement.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion, finding no strong prima facie case because the clause was deemed contrary to public policy based on U.S. case law.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the agreement and in applying U.S. law over Canadian law, which upholds such clauses in litigation settlements.

The Court found a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the appellants, granting the injunction.

The appellant physiotherapist appealed an 18-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for practicing without professional liability insurance and misleading the College.

This was the appellant's third disciplinary proceeding involving dishonesty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was not demonstrably unfit or clearly excessive given the exceptional circumstances, repeated instances of dishonesty, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a three-month licence suspension and costs.

The misconduct arose from the appellant attending a client's home unannounced to collect an unpaid bill, resulting in a physical altercation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's factual findings or penalty.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking a condition that the appellant practise under supervision was also dismissed.

The applicant, a licensed racehorse trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel.

A horse trained by the applicant tested positive for a banned substance, resulting in an absolute liability offence.

The Panel found the applicant was not at fault and reduced his suspension from 15 days to seven days, but concluded it had no authority to waive the rule entirely.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Panel's decision reasonable as the offence is one of absolute liability and due diligence is only relevant to penalty, not liability.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Akbarali J. on November 12, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $1,500.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated June 29, 2020, and August 17, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $10,000, payable jointly and severally by the moving parties.