Katherine E. Swinton

The appellant massage therapist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Panel's decision was unreasonable because its credibility assessment of the complainant and the appellant was fundamentally flawed, incomplete, and lacked transparency.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision finding it unwilling or unable to resolve warranty claims, which allowed Tarion to abridge vendor repair periods.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application without hearing the merits, finding that the issue was moot because the repair periods had long expired and Tarion had already undertaken the repairs.

The court also noted the applicant's unreasonable delay in bringing the application and the availability of an alternative remedy through an existing civil action.

The appellant lawyer appealed an order dismissing his motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the respondents.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge's one-sentence endorsement lacked adequate reasons, preventing appellate review.

Exercising its jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act, the Divisional Court heard the motion on its merits.

The court found that the parties' counsel had reached a binding settlement agreement via email, agreeing on the essential terms of a $15,000 payment and a full and final release.

The respondents' subsequent refusal to sign the documents was an improper attempt to resile from the agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the settlement enforced.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring her to pay $150,000 to the responding party for interim disbursements under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party argued there were conflicting decisions regarding the requirement of exceptional circumstances and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions as the rule involves discretionary balancing to level the playing field, and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's factual findings and exercise of discretion.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring him to pay $100,000 in interim disbursements to the responding party in a family law proceeding.

He argued a denial of natural justice and that the motions judge lacked jurisdiction due to a prior order.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, noting the moving party had notice and the prior order was not issued or entered.

The court also found the proposed appeal did not raise questions of general importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding party.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders: an order dismissing a request for forensic imaging of the responding parties' servers and devices, and an order dismissing a contempt motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the moving party failed to adequately explain its lengthy delay in pursuing the correct appeal route.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the proposed appeals lacked merit, as the motions judge correctly applied the legal tests for forensic imaging and civil contempt, and there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders.

The moving party defendant sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to serve a Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim against foreign defendants in a proposed class proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the motions judge was in the best position to interpret his own prior order regarding amendments for the purpose of certification.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance warranting appellate consideration.

The children's aid society and the prospective adoptive parents sought judicial review of decisions by the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the adoption placement of a child.

The Board had rescinded the society's decision to refuse another foster family's adoption application and confirmed the termination of the prospective adoptive parents' adoption placement.

The Divisional Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding that the Board's conduct during the hearing, including uneven treatment of the foster families and inappropriate questioning of witnesses, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court set aside the Board's decisions and ordered a new hearing before a newly constituted panel to determine the child's current best interests.

The moving party sought a stay of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing pending a motion for leave to appeal the Board's decision dismissing its motion to remove the responding parties' lawyers of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the moving party failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellants appealed an order removing their lawyers of record, which was made during a motion to consolidate and extend time.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge clearly erred by proceeding without proper notice, without supporting evidence, without allowing responding evidence, and on a motion brought by a respondent who lacked standing.

The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and costs were awarded against the respondent personally.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the Registrar not to carry out a proposal to refuse the respondent's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The respondent had a criminal conviction for arson and provided inaccurate details about it during the application process.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by focusing on whether the respondent deliberately intended to mislead rather than whether he knowingly made false statements.

The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and directed the Registrar to refuse the registration.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing his appeal to the Divisional Court for want of jurisdiction.

The underlying action claimed $15 million in damages, which exceeds the $50,000 monetary limit for appeals to the Divisional Court under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant argued the appeal should have been transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting the appellant had not sought a transfer in his materials and had proceeded in the Divisional Court despite being alerted to the jurisdictional issue.

The Divisional Court issued supplementary reasons to clarify its earlier decision partially allowing the appellant's appeal from an Ontario Securities Commission decision.

The original appellate decision set aside specific ten-year bans and an administrative penalty, remitting them for a fresh determination.

Upon request for clarification, the Court agreed with the parties that the remedy should apply to all ten-year bans imposed on the appellant.

The earlier decision was amended to set aside all such bans and remit them to the Commission.

The appellant lawyer appealed findings of professional misconduct and a six-month suspension imposed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The misconduct arose from his representation of a severely injured client and the client's spouse amidst family conflicts over care and property.

The lawyer was found to have acted in a conflict of interest, breached court orders, commissioned a misleading affidavit, and delayed a settlement to prevent a Law Society complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Law Society Appeal Panel's decision reasonable and the penalty well within the appropriate range for the serious departure from professional standards.

The applicant, an Advanced Care Paramedic, sought judicial review of a medical director's decision to decertify him following an investigation into a call where a patient later died.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the medical director did not follow the advisory recommendations of the Paramedic Practice Review Committee and acted as investigator, prosecutor, and decision-maker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was provided with adequate notice, disclosure, opportunities to respond, and reasons, and that the process did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed a final order regarding spousal support, arguing the trial judge erred in imputing income to her, setting the commencement date for support, fixing the quantum within the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and calculating the respondent's income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or significant misapprehension of evidence.

The court upheld the trial judge's discretionary decisions, including the imputation of income based on the appellant's capacity and the selection of a post-application commencement date due to the appellant's delay in pursuing the claim.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board found that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-unionized contractor, but denied an award of damages because the union suffered no loss, as only a non-union contractor was capable of performing the specialized work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on remedy was owed deference and was not outside the range of reasonable outcomes.

The plaintiffs appealed an order dismissing their action for delay following a status hearing.

The action arose from alleged property damage during a swimming pool cleaning.

The Divisional Court found that the Master erred in her application of the test for dismissal for delay by failing to consider the overall context of the litigation, incorrectly identifying the period of delay, and mechanically applying a presumption of prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and the action was ordered to proceed to mediation and trial.

The moving defendants sought leave to appeal orders refusing to compel production of agreements between the plaintiffs and their content providers in satellite signal piracy litigation.

The defendants argued that documents showing programming acquisition costs were relevant to calculating the plaintiffs’ lost profit damages.

The court applied the tests under r. 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found no conflict with the cited Quebec decision and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s ruling.

Evidence indicated that any recovered amounts would flow through to content providers or SOCAN, making the requested documents irrelevant to the damages calculation.

The issues were fact‑specific and not of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for breach of contract regarding the value of shares in a startup insurance brokerage.

The trial judge had determined the fair market value of the shares based on net earnings, relying on an unsworn affidavit submitted after trial, rather than reopening the trial for proper valuation evidence.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge erred by failing to reopen the trial to adduce objective evidence of fair market value, as the contractual provision relied upon did not apply to an early termination.

The appeal was granted and the quantification of damages was remitted to the trial judge.