Katherine E. Swinton

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ministry denying it a grant under the Ontario Small Business Support Grant program.

The Ministry determined the applicant was ineligible because its door installation business constituted construction services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Ministry's interpretation of the eligibility criteria was reasonable and did not contravene the Ministry of Revenue Act.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as adequate reasons were provided and the non-disclosure of the assessors' identities was justified.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Crown's decision to enact amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and revoke the Forestry Regulation, arguing these actions breached the Crown's duty to consult under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application.

The majority held that the duty to consult does not apply to the legislative process, relying on Mikisew Cree.

Regarding the revocation of the Forestry Regulation, the majority found no constitutional duty to consult as the revocation did not adversely affect Aboriginal or treaty rights, and even if a duty existed, it was at the low end of the spectrum and the Crown's consultation was adequate.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated August 9, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding party within 30 days.

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to revoke the respondents' funeral director and establishment operator licences.

The respondent had previously pleaded guilty to stealing approximately $86,000 from a local charity to pay business debts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment that the respondent's conduct was out of character, that he had insight into his misconduct, and that public protection did not require revocation.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Steele J. The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether it is legally possible for some limited partners to bring a common law derivative action on behalf of a limited partnership against a general partner.

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

The moving parties, Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Auto Canada Corp., sought leave to appeal the order of Barnes J. dated June 10, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded against each moving party, payable to the respondent within 30 days.

The appellant appealed a decision recognizing and enforcing an arbitral award made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).

The appellant argued that the respondent had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court by commencing an action there before pursuing arbitration, and that he had not received proper notice of the arbitration proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondent unequivocally abandoned the right to arbitrate, and confirming that the record supported the application judge's finding that proper notice was given.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant alleged his employment was terminated because he took personal emergency leave and made a harassment complaint.

The Board found the termination was solely due to ongoing performance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test for reprisal, reasonably assessed the evidence, and did not deny the applicant procedural fairness in its evidentiary rulings.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved driving a police cruiser without a valid license, failing to report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic, and deceiving a supervising officer.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission had properly addressed the applicant's arguments and reasonably upheld both the misconduct findings and the termination of employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant mother wrongfully removed the parties' three children from their habitual residence in Nigeria to Ontario.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act and ordered the children returned to Nigeria under s. 40, finding no serious harm would result.

On appeal, the mother argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the serious harm test, Nigerian law, and the requirements of s. 40.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and correctly applied the law regarding jurisdiction and return orders.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision refusing to extend the limitation period for her claim for non-earner benefits.

The LAT Act limits appeals to questions of law, but the applicant sought judicial review on issues of mixed fact and law regarding her mental capacity.

Applying the framework from Yatar, the Divisional Court declined to hear the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review where the legislature intended to limit recourse to the courts.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of André J. dated April 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 23, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded no costs.

The court noted that it reached its decision without reference to non-compliant materials filed by the responding party.

The third parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated May 13, 2022.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000, payable within 30 days.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which held that Employment Insurance (EI) sickness benefits were not deductible from the respondent's Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the adjudicator erred in law by creating an ambiguity where none existed and by distinguishing sickness benefits from other EI benefits.

The Court held that all EI benefits, including sickness benefits, fall within the definition of gross employment income and must be deducted from IRBs at the rate of 70 per cent.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld the employer's random drug testing policy for safety-sensitive positions at the airport.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it departed from established arbitral jurisprudence without justification.

Specifically, the arbitrator upheld the policy without any evidence of a workplace drug problem at the airport, relying instead on evidence from a different case involving a different workplace.

The application for judicial review was granted, the award was set aside, and the grievance was remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a first collective agreement for nurses at a long-term care home.

The union argued that the arbitrator's decision to transition the disability income protection plan to the central agreement terms was unreasonable and lacked adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied the replication principle and statutory criteria, and that the brief reasons were adequate given the parties' prior agreement to a bottom-line decision.

The applicant sought judicial review to declare provisions of O. Reg 282/98 under the Assessment Act invalid.

The applicant argued that the regulation's formula for valuing pipelines resulted in an assessed value greater than current value, which it claimed was inconsistent with the purpose of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the purpose of the Assessment Act is to provide for the assessment and taxation of property, not strictly to assess based on current value.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Act expressly authorizes the Minister to make regulations providing an alternate method for valuing pipelines.