Katherine E. Swinton

The applicant sought judicial review of the AGCO's decision refusing a retail sales authorization for a cannabis store.

The AGCO rejected the application because the proposed location was within 150 metres of a school, measured using a straight-line method.

The applicant argued the distance should be measured by the shortest publicly available walking route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the AGCO's straight-line measurement method was a reasonable interpretation of the Cannabis Licence Act and its regulations, and that the method was sufficiently transparent to the public.

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Ontario College of Pharmacists Discipline Committee Panel, which had dismissed her motion to stay disciplinary proceedings for abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention, and the applicant would have the opportunity to raise her abuse of process arguments before the Discipline Committee and on any subsequent appeal.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision to substitute a 30-day suspension for the dismissal of a flight attendant who had unlatched refreshment trolleys during a flight.

The employer argued the arbitrator's reasoning was illogical and failed to address safety concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, justified, and transparent under the Vavilov standard, as the arbitrator reasonably concluded the misconduct was not as grave as the employer believed and lacked malice.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order that granted joint custody and gradually increased the respondent mother's access to their child.

The appellant also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the child's recent regressive behaviour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test and consisted largely of uncorroborated hearsay.

The court also dismissed the appeal, concluding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the child's best interests, the mother's history of substance abuse, and the parties' ability to communicate.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of interim orders made by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which restricted his medical practice due to concerns that his conduct exposed patients to harm.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC reasonably relied on expert evidence to conclude patients were likely to be exposed to harm, and that the paper-based process followed by the ICRC met the required duty of procedural fairness for interim protective orders.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order termination and severance pay against a related company and corporate directors following the employer's bankruptcy.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The Court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that he lacked jurisdiction to make orders against entities and individuals who were not parties to the collective agreement, noting that the related company was not a party and the Business Corporations Act requires a civil action to hold directors liable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary order made by Justice Shelston on August 27, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,745.55.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision ordering the disclosure of the Premier's mandate letters to Cabinet ministers.

The Cabinet Office opposed disclosure, claiming the letters were exempt under the Cabinet records exemption in s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the IPC's decision.

The court found it was reasonable for the IPC to conclude that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosing the mandate letters would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order certifying a class action.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, but limited it to two specific questions: whether the motion judge erred in applying the preferable procedure requirement under s. 5(1)(d) of the Class Proceedings Act given a parallel authorization in Quebec, and whether the judge erred in applying the abuse of process doctrine.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and left to the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The Quebec Plaintiffs and the Defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Belobaba J. dated November 21, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,500 were ordered payable by each of the moving parties to the responding Ontario Plaintiffs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Kril J. dated May 14, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hughes J. dated June 15, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant lawyer appealed an order dismissing his appeal from an Assessment Officer's decision.

The Assessment Officer had assessed accounts totaling $24,992.55 for legal services, ordered the appellant to refund $2,166.57 to the client, and rejected the appellant's claim for costs of $118,652.53 due to both parties causing delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of principle or fact by the appeal judge in upholding the Assessment Officer's decision.

The court emphasized the extreme lack of proportionality in conducting a 25-day hearing over a $25,000 dispute.

The plaintiffs brought a consolidated motion for leave to appeal five orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 to a non-party student who reasonably participated in the motion.

The court also awarded elevated costs of $20,000 to the defendants, noting the plaintiffs filed voluminous materials of over 4,500 pages and improperly adduced fresh evidence through counsel's affidavits.

The moving party, Stefano Carella, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated February 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order was made as to costs due to an outstanding issue regarding whether the moving party was capable of instructing counsel.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Davies J. dated May 13, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties, representing two groups of plaintiffs, brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Belobaba J. in a class action proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, no costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order awarding the respondent spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for both quantum and duration, as well as a payment for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not deducting the respondent's Ontario Disability Support Program benefits from the spousal support calculation and by finding an inability to work without independent expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the support award and upholding the trial judge's application of the joint family venture framework to the unjust enrichment claim.

The appellants appealed an order of the Surveyor General confirming a survey plan that fixed the position of a concession road allowance and shore road allowance across their property.

The appellants argued the Surveyor General erred by disregarding an original monument and relying on a standard iron bar as the best evidence of the inner limit of the shore road allowance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the application of the hierarchy of survey evidence and no palpable and overriding error in the Surveyor General's factual findings regarding the monuments.