Katherine E. Swinton

The applicant company sought judicial review of an interlocutory procedural order made by an arbitrator in an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The order required the company to produce documents found to be arguably relevant and declined to bifurcate the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating its disinclination to intervene in ongoing labour relations processes absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a written caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution was issued because the applicant's clinic used patient and staff testimonials in its advertising, contrary to the regulations under the Medicine Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate and the interpretation of the regulation prohibiting testimonials was reasonable.

The appellants, a landlord and his corporation, appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board requiring the corporation to pay the tenant $5,829.91.

The individual appellant argued the corporation was not properly served with the notice of hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on a threshold issue, noting that under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a corporation must be represented by a lawyer unless leave is granted.

As the individual appellant was self-represented, had not sought leave, and had no standing to speak for the corporation, the appeal was not properly before the court and was dismissed.

The appellant, a foreign corporation, appealed a Master's order dismissing its motion to strike service outside Ontario and stay the action.

The plaintiff alleged the appellant induced a former employee to breach her contract and engaged in conspiracy.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction simpliciter, as the plaintiff established a good arguable case that the torts were committed in Ontario and a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.

The applicant sought a stay of conduct and reinstatement proceedings before the Law Society Tribunal pending her application for judicial review of several interlocutory rulings.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify intervening in ongoing administrative proceedings.

The court noted the availability of an adequate alternative remedy through the internal appeal structure and found that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the disciplinary process to proceed in the public interest.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found a grievor was a member of the full-time support staff bargaining unit and thus entitled to grieve a job competition.

The arbitrator had included the grievor's time as a temporary replacement worker in calculating whether he was regularly employed for more than 24 hours a week.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, noting that the arbitrator misunderstood the employer's position, misapplied past jurisprudence, and failed to recognize that temporary replacement employees are already part of the full-time bargaining unit.

The application for judicial review was granted and the award was quashed.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy.

The Board had ordered eviction based on the tenant's failure to clean up dog feces, denial of access to a real estate agent, and failure to pay the water bill.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the tenant's grounds of appeal were challenges to findings of fact rather than questions of law as required by s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appeal was deemed manifestly devoid of merit and an attempt to delay eviction.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay spousal support despite a waiver in the parties' separation agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in applying the Miglin test by failing to consider whether the agreement as a whole substantially complied with the Divorce Act and whether there had been a significant change in circumstances.

The court set aside the spousal and child support orders and increased the appellant's trial costs award to $60,000 due to his complete success and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The appellant veterinarian appealed findings of professional misconduct, penalty, and costs made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario.

The Committee found the appellant guilty of obstructing an investigation, suppressing evidence, and having criminal convictions for assault.

On appeal, the appellant argued procedural unfairness due to language barriers and lack of a witness list, and challenged the reasonableness of the credibility findings, penalty, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the Committee's decisions on misconduct, the four-month suspension, practice restrictions, and costs were reasonable.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding.

The applicants had sought to dismiss the protection application on the basis that the child was over 18 years old at the time of apprehension.

The motion judge concluded that the child's age could not be determined summarily due to contradictory evidence and directed the matter to trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the applicants failed to meet the test under Rule 62.02(4).

There were no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, no procedural unfairness, and the issue was not of general importance.

The appellant father appealed an order striking his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple costs orders in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The motion judge found the father's non-compliance was willful and that his conduct was harming the children.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's factual findings but found an error in principle in failing to consider alternative remedies to completely barring the father from the trial.

The appeal was allowed in part; the pleadings remained struck, but the father was granted limited participation rights at the custody and access trial to cross-examine the joint assessor and make closing arguments.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the Academic Appeals Committee upholding his dismissal from the anesthesia residency program.

He argued that deviations from his remediation plan, including timeline errors and lack of baseline testing, made the process manifestly unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeals Committee's conclusion that the deviations were not significant enough to invalidate the remediation process was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant, a town councillor, brought an application for judicial review regarding a sexual harassment investigation.

The Integrity Commissioner subsequently concluded the complaint could not be determined, rendering the application moot.

The applicant amended his application to seek a declaration of mootness and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no unusual circumstances to award costs to the applicant for a moot proceeding, and awarded $15,000 in costs to the respondent Town.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario refusing to dismiss a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent had alleged racial profiling during a traffic stop, an issue previously raised and dismissed in a criminal proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances to review the interlocutory decision and held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable.

The Tribunal failed to properly apply the principles of issue estoppel and fairness as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, relying instead on generalized public policy concerns rather than a case-specific analysis.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering the estate of Doreen Duffey to pay $11,862.31 to the estate of Frederick Duffey.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in interpreting the will regarding funeral expenses and characterizing certain house expenditures as capital rather than repairs.

The Divisional Court found no error in the judge's interpretation of the will or characterization of the expenses.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of a conceded $939.00 deduction, and otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for civil fraud and ordering him to pay $30,526 plus costs.

The respondent had paid the appellant's CRA tax lien to clear title to a jointly owned family residence transferred to her pursuant to a family law settlement, and subsequently sued him after he declared bankruptcy, alleging his failure to disclose the tax debt constituted fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding the trial judge erred in law by applying a test for fraudulent non-disclosure rather than the strict four-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation, and made palpable and overriding errors of fact unsupported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a final costs order requiring him to pay $25,000 to the respondent following the settlement of their matrimonial proceedings.

The trial judge had based the costs award on a finding that the respondent had proposed the fundamental framework of parallel parenting and the appellant had unreasonably rejected it.

The Divisional Court found this to be a palpable and overriding error, as the appellant's earlier offer had actually proposed parallel parenting, while the respondent's initial offers sought weekend access.

The costs order was set aside, and no costs were awarded for the trial or the appeal.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction so the landlords' daughter could move into the unit.

The tenant argued she was denied procedural fairness and that the Board erred in applying the genuine intention test and refusing relief from eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no error in the Board's application of the genuine intention test under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, and no error in refusing relief under s. 83(3).

The applicant bank sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of an affinity agreement between the bank and a university.

The bank argued the agreement was exempt from disclosure under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as confidential commercial information.

The adjudicator found the information was not 'supplied' in confidence because it was a negotiated contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's interpretation and application of the Act to be reasonable.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' Small Claims Court appeal, the successful respondents sought costs of $21,001.05 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that an elevated scale of costs was warranted due to the respondents' offers to settle, the appellants' abandonment of arguments at the hearing, and the complexity caused by the appellants' materials.

However, applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $15,000 all-inclusive.