Katherine E. Swinton

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal decision regarding losses from a house fire, arguing the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction in valuing the contents and breached procedural fairness by failing to provide written reasons for the building's depreciation rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's valuation of the contents was reasonable and did not determine legal entitlement.

The court also held that the appraisal process met procedural fairness requirements, as oral reasons were provided and written reasons were not requested.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for unnecessary use of force against a person in custody.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission applied the correct standard of review and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was warranted despite some errors by the Hearing Officer.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its action for copyright infringement against the respondent, a former employee of a hotel.

The appellant claimed ownership of a logo used by the hotel and alleged the respondent infringed its copyright by using the logo in a website redesign and new signage.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that ownership of the logo had transferred to the hotel operator and that the respondent was not liable as she acted in the course of her employment.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the costs award, finding the trial judge erred in principle by awarding $4,250 to a self-represented litigant.

The costs award was reduced to $1,550.

The appellant employer appealed an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The employee had been terminated for cause following two off-duty assaults.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that genuine issues for trial existed, including whether the employer had prior knowledge of one assault, whether the employee's developmental disability was known and accommodated, and whether mitigating factors were properly considered.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board which found an agreement to terminate the respondents' tenancy under s. 37(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The landlords argued the Board erred by not applying general contract principles such as offer, acceptance, and consideration.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness and the Board made no error of law, as the statute only requires finding whether the parties agreed or consented to terminate, not a formal contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, who were volunteer directors of corporations within the insolvent First Leaside group, appealed a motion judge's refusal to dismiss negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against them.

The plaintiffs, investors in the group, alleged the directors owed them a duty of care regarding the financial stewardship of the corporations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the actions against the appellants, holding that a director's duty of care is owed to the corporation, not to individual shareholders or investors, absent specific circumstances like fraud or independent tortious conduct, which were not pleaded.

The appellant appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal of his civil action under Rule 48.14(1).

The Divisional Court found that the Master erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors of fact by incorrectly applying the test for setting aside an administrative dismissal.

Specifically, the Master failed to consider all factors, such as promptness and prejudice, and ignored certified information provided by counsel in a Simplified Procedure motion form.

The appeal was allowed, the Master's order was set aside, and the action was ordered to be set down for trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding him liable for conversion and ordering him to pay $25,000 for failing to return equipment owned by the respondent.

On appeal, the appellant alleged numerous errors of fact and law, including issues with equipment ownership, admission of documents, and the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact in the trial judge's conclusions and holding that the action was commenced within the two-year limitation period following the respondent's demand for the equipment's return.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to involuntarily transfer a Grade 12 student to a new school under its Fresh Start Policy following his involvement in an assault on another student.

The applicants argued the transfer was an unauthorized disciplinary measure, that they were denied procedural fairness, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the transfer was an administrative measure aimed at protecting the victim's well-being, not a disciplinary sanction.

The court also held that the procedural fairness owed was met and the superintendent's decision was reasonable.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision that allowed an insured's appeal in part regarding statutory accident benefits.

The insurer had denied claims for an in-home assessment and form preparation, alleging the clinics were engaged in a fraudulent scheme.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate exceeded his jurisdiction by interfering with the Arbitrator's findings of fact regarding the in-home assessment, as appeals are limited to questions of law.

However, the court upheld the decision requiring the insurer to pay for form preparation because the insurer failed to object to the application within the statutory timeframe.

The appellant contractor appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims against an insurer and an independent adjuster for unpaid repair work following a fire.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding no contract existed with the insurer or adjuster, and in dismissing its unjust enrichment claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the written contract was solely with the property owner and that the insurer and adjuster received no real benefit from the work.

Leave to appeal the substantial indemnity costs order was also denied.

The mother appealed a summary judgment order denying her access to her four eldest children after they were made Crown wards.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred in law by applying the pre-Hryniak test for summary judgment and failing to provide adequate reasons.

However, exercising its appellate powers, the Court reviewed the record and concluded that summary judgment was appropriate.

The Court held that the mother failed to establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship with the children that would justify an access order under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, sought judicial review of a disciplinary decision made by the party that fined him $50,000 for a rules violation.

The party brought a motion to quash the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that political parties are private, voluntary associations.

Applying the factors from Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority, the court concluded that the party's disciplinary decisions do not involve the exercise of state power and are therefore not subject to public law remedies like certiorari.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion to quash an appeal and an application for judicial review filed by the respondent regarding an interlocutory evidentiary ruling.

The respondent had sought to exclude evidence based on solicitor-client privilege, which the OSC hearing panel dismissed.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that section 9(1) of the Securities Act only permits appeals of final decisions.

The court also quashed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, holding that the case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting interference in an ongoing administrative proceeding.

The appellant physician appealed a two-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The appellant argued the penalty was outside the range of comparable cases and that the Committee failed to conduct a proper parity analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty was reasonable, within the range of prior decisions, and justified by the pervasive and systemic nature of the misconduct which exposed patients to a risk of serious harm.

The applicant, a chartered accountant, sought judicial review of an Appeal Committee decision that revoked his licence for professional misconduct related to a tax minimization plan.

The applicant argued the Appeal Committee applied the wrong standard of review and impermissibly interfered with the Discipline Committee's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeal Committee correctly applied a reasonableness standard and did not overturn factual findings, but rather reasonably concluded that the applicant's reliance on a colleague's tacit approval of the plan did not excuse his misconduct.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had refused to dismiss a human rights application early.

The underlying human rights application alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate related to a student's expulsion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing tribunal proceeding.

The court distinguished a previous case, noting there was no risk of inconsistent findings, no broad principle at stake, and the judicial review had caused delay.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding him to be an unauthorized occupant of a Toronto Community Housing Corporation unit and ordering his eviction.

The Board found the original tenant had illegally transferred the tenancy to the appellant.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and rejected his arguments regarding statutory time limits, procedural fairness, burden of proof, and Charter rights.

The court held that the statutory time limits did not apply to social housing, the correct standard of proof was a balance of probabilities, and the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Board's factual findings.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order awarding the respondent employee nine months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference regarding the respondent's medical evidence and by applying an incorrect legal standard to the duty to mitigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent's medical condition prevented a serious job search, and no error of law in the application of the duty to mitigate.

The respondents were injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of their employment.

They elected to opt out of WSIA benefits to join a class action and subsequently applied for Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS).

After the class action was dismissed, the insurer terminated their SABS, arguing the election was invalid.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the election was made in good faith to pursue the class action, not primarily to claim SABS.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and reasonably concluded that the ultimate dismissal of the class action did not retroactively invalidate the good faith of the initial election.