Katherine E. Swinton

The appellant estate appealed a trial judgment that found a funding option in a joint venture agreement for a condominium development to be legally unenforceable due to uncertainty.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's determination that the valuation date for the sale of the respondent's shares, ordered as an oppression remedy, should be the date of the trial reasons rather than the date the proceedings commenced.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the funding option lacked essential terms and that the chosen valuation date was the fairest in the circumstances.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent.

A prior court order required the tenant to pay $5,000 as a condition of hearing the appeal, which he failed to do.

The Divisional Court found the tenant was using the appeal process to live rent-free and dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process, lifting the stay of the eviction order.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's dismissal of her claim for $50,000 against the respondent.

The trial judge had found that a $50,000 payment made by the deceased to the respondent was repayment of a 1995 loan used to purchase a home, rather than a new loan to the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact, which were reasonably drawn from conflicting evidence.

Aviva Canada Inc. sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate's order that partially rescinded an arbitration award and remitted the respondent's entitlement to non-earner benefits to a de novo hearing before a different arbitrator.

The Divisional Court dismissed Aviva's preliminary motion to admit fresh evidence, finding no exceptional circumstances.

On the merits, the Court held that the Director's Delegate reasonably concluded the Arbitrator erred in law by failing to explicitly address whether the requested insurer examination was reasonable and necessary, and by failing to address the claim for non-earner benefits prior to the scheduled examination.

The Court also found no error in remitting the matter to a new arbitrator.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly apply s. 27 of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding the reasonableness of the landlord's entry, and failed to consider the landlord's duty to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Board correctly determined the entry was lawful, and there was no evidence connecting the tenant's medical condition to his repeated refusals to allow entry, precluding any finding on accommodation.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it breached its duty to accommodate a disabled employee.

The employee, who could only work part-time, had been permitted to remain in the full-time bargaining unit for years, receiving better benefits.

The City eventually transferred him to the part-time unit.

The arbitrator held this transfer was discriminatory absent a change in circumstances or undue hardship.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable and inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's ruling in Orillia Hospital, which established that requiring work in exchange for compensation is a bona fide occupational requirement.

The arbitration award was quashed and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award between a food services contractor and a union, arguing it was denied natural justice because it was not given notice of the hearing.

The arbitrator had found the contractor violated the collective agreement by contracting out patient food services to the hospital.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the hospital's interest in the arbitration was commercial and indirect, rather than a direct legal interest that would entitle it to third-party standing and notice.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his certificate of registration by the Discipline Committee.

He had admitted to incompetence and professional misconduct, including boundary issues and poor clinical care.

The appellant argued the Committee ignored his prospects for rehabilitation and over-emphasized his disciplinary history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's conclusion that the appellant lacked insight and posed a serious risk to the public was reasonable and justified the revocation.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that rejected its application to terminate a tenancy for demolition under s. 50(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, but granted it for extensive renovations under s. 50(1)(c).

The landlord argued the extensive work, which reconfigured the unit but kept its outer boundaries intact, constituted a demolition.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable to distinguish renovation from demolition based on whether the tenant could exercise a right of first refusal to move back into the unit.

The Court also found the Board had jurisdiction to amend the application to grant relief under s. 50(1)(c).

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

The appellant admitted to professional misconduct involving false claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

The Discipline Committee imposed a penalty that included a three-year prohibition on the appellant having any proprietary interest in a pharmacy or acting as a director of a corporation that owned a pharmacy.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked authority to impose these conditions under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's interpretation of its broad remedial authority under s. 51(2)3 of the Code to protect the public interest was reasonable.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order denying its request to file an affidavit as part of its record in an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The applicant argued that the affidavit was necessary to show the Board's findings of fact were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law by the motion judge, who was bound by established precedent that restricts the admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent, which included parking charges.

He argued that the Board member was biased, denied him procedural fairness, and erred in finding that parking charges could be included in rent geared to income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and holding that the Board correctly applied a binding 2017 Divisional Court decision between the same parties.

The court also upheld the Board's finding that the parking agreement was not signed under duress.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision regarding salary protection for downwardly reclassified employees.

The arbitrator found the provision unambiguously entitled these employees to economic increases and revisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation, treatment of estoppel, and refusal to use extrinsic evidence to create ambiguity were reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that the arbitrator breached natural justice by citing authorities not provided by the parties, as no novel issue was raised.

The applicant First Nation sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and the Minister of Finance regarding the modernization of gaming in Ontario, specifically the decisions to tender and bundle a gaming zone that included the applicant's reserve.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the impugned decisions were policy and commercial in nature and therefore not justiciable.

The court also found no bad faith, no denial of procedural fairness, and no breach of the duty to consult.

Furthermore, the court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the application for excessive and unexplained delay that caused prejudice.

The applicants sought judicial review of a municipal council's decision not to change the name of a private road named 'Swastika Trail'.

The applicants argued that the council unlawfully sub-delegated its decision-making power and fettered its discretion by relying on a vote held by a local cottagers' association.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the council retained its decision-making authority, considered multiple factors beyond the association's vote, and did not unlawfully sub-delegate or fetter its discretion.

The court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of the council's decision under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appellants, former senior executives of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decisions finding they engaged in a massive securities fraud and imposing significant sanctions, including disgorgement and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to account for Chinese business and cultural practices (guanxi) when determining their intent to defraud, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias by the panel chair, and challenged the sanctions as excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Ontario securities law overrides cultural practices for reporting issuers, the bias claim was unfounded, and the sanctions were reasonable given the enormity of the fraud and the need for deterrence.

The appellants, former executives of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decisions finding they engaged in a massive securities fraud and imposing significant sanctions, including over $11 million in administrative penalties and $64 million in disgorgement.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to properly consider Chinese business and cultural practices (guanxi) when assessing their intent to commit fraud, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias by the hearing chair, and challenged the sanctions as excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission reasonably concluded that Ontario securities law overrides cultural explanations for illegal conduct, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the sanctions were proportionate to the enormity of the fraud.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatric report prepared after the Director's decision, which was admissible under s. 64(1) of O. Reg. 222/98.

The Tribunal also misapprehended medical imaging evidence regarding the appellant's physical condition and failed to consider medical opinions relating to his depression.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatrist's report prepared after the Director's decision, which corroborated the appellant's physical and mental conditions.

The matter was remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal affirming the termination of his ODSP benefits.

His benefits were terminated because he was absent from Ontario for more than 30 days after travelling to Mexico and missing his return flight due to illness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and noting the appellant conceded he was ineligible for ODSP benefits during the relevant period because he was receiving OSAP.