Katherine E. Swinton

The self-represented appellant appealed a final order enforcing a $35,000 settlement.

He argued the motion judge denied him procedural fairness by refusing to hear his arguments or receive his materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had heard and considered the appellant's arguments.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's factual determination that a settlement was reached and was not unconscionable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the denial of OHIP coverage for an out-of-country residential treatment program for mental health and substance abuse.

The Board found that equivalent services were available in Ontario and that the appellant would not face a delay resulting in death or medically significant irreversible tissue damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions regarding the essential elements of the treatment and the availability of timely equivalent services in Ontario were reasonable.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (now LPAT) which adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding Official Plan Amendment 258 (OPA 258) until the City enacted a Development Permit System (DPS) by-law.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to effectively order the passage of a by-law and denied the City its statutory right to a hearing under the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board did not order the passage of a by-law but reasonably exercised its procedural discretion to adjourn the hearing to ensure it had the necessary evidence to properly assess the planning merits of OPA 258.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent board refusing to grant him a second appeal hearing after he failed a clinical skills equivalency exam.

The applicant argued that the initial appeal panel did not have his typodonts before it and that he was denied procedural fairness when the board rejected his request for a second appeal based on new procedural and medical issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the panel had the proper materials and that the applicant should have raised his procedural and medical concerns during the exam or in his initial appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order refusing her request for access to a document under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The IPC had found the document exempt from disclosure because it would result in an unjustified invasion of another party's privacy and could reasonably be expected to endanger their physical safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's conclusion that the personal information was inextricably intertwined and could not be severed was reasonable.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent employee $22,084 in a wrongful dismissal action under the Simplified Rules.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in proceeding by summary judgment and in determining the issue of mitigation without cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there were no genuine issues of credibility and that the respondent's mitigation efforts were reasonable.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to set aside the costs order, as the motion judge had failed to hear costs submissions.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision finding that post-accident business income from a family pharmacy should be deducted from the applicant's income replacement benefits (IRBs) under s. 7(3)(b) of the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The applicant argued that 'earned' income required active engagement in the business.

The Divisional Court upheld the Director's Delegate's decision as reasonable, agreeing that a contextual interpretation of the SABS focuses on the profit and loss of the business rather than requiring active participation by the self-employed person.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee common law reasonable notice damages.

The motion judge had found that the termination clause in the employment agreement was ambiguous and did not clearly rebut the presumption of common law notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in interpreting the contract.

The court found that the termination clause, when read in the context of the entire agreement, lacked the necessary clarity to limit the employee's entitlements to the statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions by the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which refused to refer his complaints against three school administrators to discipline.

The court ruled the applicant only had standing to raise issues of procedural fairness.

The applicant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the Committee was improperly constituted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no factual basis for bias, and that the Committee was properly constituted.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a teacher, sought judicial review of a decision by the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers to issue him a written caution.

The caution related to his communications with a school principal regarding his son's suspension.

The applicant argued he was acting as a parent, not a teacher, and alleged procedural unfairness and unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the Committee's decision to issue a caution fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The appellants appealed a merits decision and a sanctions decision of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Commission had found that a set of contracts marketed as a tax planning vehicle constituted an 'investment contract' and therefore a 'security' under the Securities Act.

The Commission concluded that the appellants breached the Act by selling these securities without being registered and without filing a prospectus, imposing trading bans, administrative penalties, and costs.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission's application of the test for an investment contract was reasonable and that the sanctions imposed were proportionate and justified.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding an application for certification in the construction industry.

The union argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to licensed sheet metal workers and registered apprentices, and that the Board breached procedural fairness by altering the proposed bargaining unit description without submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the union failed to seek reconsideration on that issue.

The Court also held that the Board's decision to include unlicensed workers in the bargaining unit was reasonable, as it appropriately focused on the work performed on the application date rather than licensing status under collateral legislation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission that allocated Standardbred Revenue Allocation marketing funds between two horsepersons' associations.

The applicant argued the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by recognizing a new association and altering a longstanding Memorandum of Understanding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's broad statutory powers to govern and regulate the horse racing industry in the public interest permitted it to modify existing legal rights to resolve a longstanding dispute over languishing funds.

The standard of review was reasonableness, and the Commission's decision was justifiable, intelligible, and within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to proceed with his complaint against the police.

The OIPRD had screened out the complaint as frivolous under section 60(4) of the Police Services Act, finding no air of reality to the allegations of hacking, being followed, and police corruption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable based on the record before it.

The appellant appealed from a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order terminating his occupancy and a review order dismissing his request for reconsideration.

The appellant argued that the consent order was invalid because he was the surviving spouse of the deceased tenant and could not waive his rights to continue the tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the appellant had acquired the rights of a tenant, he was entitled to consent to the termination of the tenancy under s. 37(3) of the Act, and there was no evidence of mutual mistake, fraud, or other grounds to set aside the consent order.

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and revoking his certificate of registration.

The Committee found that the appellant had deliberately overbilled patients for laser eye surgery and directed staff to alter medical records to conceal the overbilling.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee misapprehended the evidence, reversed the burden of proof, and imposed an unreasonable penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's credibility findings and weighing of the evidence were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The penalty of revocation was also upheld as reasonable given the premeditated nature of the fraud and the need for public protection.

The respondent landlords brought motions to quash the tenant's appeals from two Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders.

The tenant had a history of rent arrears and property damage, and failed to appear for the motion hearing.

The Divisional Court found that the appeals did not raise extricable questions of law and were pursued as an abuse of process to obtain the automatic stay of eviction.

The motions to quash were granted, the stays were lifted, and costs were awarded to the landlords.

The moving party hospital authority brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding party physician from publicly commenting on social media about matters at issue in his pending appeal regarding medical privileges, and to require him to remove past posts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its ability to participate in the appeal process under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also held that the balance of convenience did not favour the broad injunction sought, as it would seriously curtail the responding party's freedom of expression.

The applicant employer brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court for an order in the nature of certiorari to quash an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondent union consented to the order, but the Board opposed it.

The single judge determined she lacked jurisdiction to grant a final order quashing the decision, as such relief must be granted by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also noted that quashing an administrative decision requires a review of the merits, even on consent.

The motion was adjourned to a full panel.

Both the doctor and the College brought applications under s. 35(9) of the Mental Health Act for an order permitting the disclosure of a patient's psychiatric consultation notes in a discipline hearing.

The discipline proceedings involved allegations of sexual abuse and failure to maintain the standard of practice.

The patient refused to consent to the disclosure.

The court found that the notes were essential to the College's prosecution and to the doctor's ability to make full answer and defence.

The applications were granted, as disclosure was deemed essential in the interests of justice.