Katherine E. Swinton

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that the respondent employee's dismissal was discriminatory.

The Tribunal had found the employee was harassed and that his dismissal following a workplace fight was discriminatory because the fight was partly a reaction to the harassment.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision regarding the dismissal was unreasonable because it failed to properly assess whether the dismissal was discriminatory, lacked an evidentiary basis linking the employee's depression to the fight, and failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination before finding a duty to investigate.

The application for judicial review was granted, the dismissal finding and remedy were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Manitoba was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff alleged breach of employment contract obligations, including confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions, and related economic torts following the departure of an investment advisor to a competing firm.

Applying the presumptive connecting factor framework from Van Breda, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the employer carried on business in Ontario and the employment contract was formed in Ontario when acceptance was received there.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of a real and substantial connection or demonstrate that Manitoba was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff’s cross-motion to have the action tried together with three other related Ontario actions was also dismissed due to material factual and contractual differences between the cases.

The applicant, a former employee, sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under the Pay Equity Act for failing to establish a prima facie case.

She argued the Tribunal made findings of fact without evidence and denied her procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable, noting the applicant failed to plead material facts challenging the pay equity plan and had ample notice that her application could be dismissed early.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the revocation of their motor vehicle inspection station and mechanic registrations.

They argued the Tribunal erred in weighing historical allegations and denied procedural fairness through undue interference during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably considered the appellants' entire course of conduct, including 22 recent allegations of malfeasance, and that the Tribunal's interventions to clarify technical evidence did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's costs order, arguing that the respondent Lattice Engines Inc. should not have been awarded costs as its interests were identical to the respondent Scott's, and that the quantum of costs awarded to Scott was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondents had distinct interests warranting separate representation and that the quantum of costs awarded to Scott was reasonable and not an error in principle.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for the winding-up of a corporation or other equitable relief under the Business Corporations Act.

The application judge had found no irreconcilable conflict, no exclusion from management, and no reasonable expectation that there would be a wind-up or forced sale of shares if an original party wished to withdraw.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellants, former mutual fund and exempt market dealers, entered into a settlement agreement with the Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA) regarding regulatory violations.

They subsequently applied to the Ontario Securities Commission to reinstate their registrations as dealing representatives.

The Commission denied the applications, finding the appellants lacked the requisite proficiency and integrity.

On appeal, the appellants argued the Commission unreasonably failed to defer to the MFDA settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission has sole jurisdiction over registration suitability and the MFDA had made no findings on that issue to which the Commission could defer.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement reached by his former counsel with the respondent police board.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider her discretion to continue the proceeding under Rule 49.09(b) and erred in fact by ignoring his evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised her discretion to enforce the settlement, as the former counsel had ostensible authority to settle and the appellant's remedy for any allegedly negligent legal advice lay against his former counsel, not the respondents.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award denying her independent standing in a grievance arbitration concerning her alleged breach of a settlement agreement's non-disclosure provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the union had exclusive carriage of the matter and that any complaints regarding the union's representation should be directed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Court also held that the application for judicial review was premature.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission, arguing that the Commission unreasonably inferred that the appellant had knowledge of a proposed acquisition based on circumstantial evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission's detailed findings of fact provided clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to support the inference of knowledge.

The standard of review was agreed to be reasonableness, and the court found the Commission's inference to be reasonable and compelling.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a decision of the Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had decided not to refer a patient's complaint to discipline, but instead cautioned the applicant and required him to take an educational program on patient communication after he insisted on a written apology from a patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable regarding the adequacy of the investigation, the characterization of the applicant's conduct, and the consideration of his prior complaints history.

The appellant, a lawyer whose licence was revoked for participating in mortgage fraud, appealed the Law Society appeal panel's decision affirming the revocation.

He argued that the hearing panel denied him procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment on medical grounds and later granting an adjournment on the condition that he refrain from practising law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing panel properly exercised its discretion in assessing the contradictory medical evidence and balancing the public interest against the appellant's requests.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying her standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision on standing was both reasonable and correct.

The court further held that without standing, the applicant could not raise the issue of bias.

The court noted prematurity might also be a ground for dismissal but reserved definitive findings for written reasons to follow.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions granting union certification in the construction industry.

The employer argued the Board erred by accepting a union membership card from an employee who worked on the application date but signed the card later that day after being laid off.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Board's long-standing practice of not parsing the date of application into units of time of less than a day was consistent with the Labour Relations Act and its purposes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a branch of the United States Department of Defense, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent its civilian employees in Ontario.

The Board had found that the applicant was a separate agency of the foreign state, had waived sovereign immunity, and was engaged in commercial activity.

The Divisional Court quashed the certification, holding that the applicant was an integral part of the U.S. government, had not waived its immunity, and was engaged in sovereign military support activities rather than commercial activities.

The appellant mother appealed a consent order implementing the recommendations of a jointly retained assessor for parallel parenting.

She argued the judge failed to consider the children's best interests and that the assessor's investigation was flawed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge made no error in giving effect to the parties' agreement to be bound by the assessor's recommendations, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error in the assessor's factual findings.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for an order compelling the Chief Building Official to issue a building permit for a residential dwelling.

The lot in question was created through a scheme involving the registration of sham deeds designed to evade the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the scheme was a fraud upon the Planning Act, meaning the deeds did not convey valid title.

As the appellant was not the lawful owner of the land, she was not eligible to apply for a building permit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission, which found that the respondent was not obliged to pay $100,000 in investigatory costs.

The Panel concluded that the applicant's Director had given the respondent the option to not renew its licence and avoid paying the costs, an option the respondent accepted.

The Divisional Court held that the Director had the discretion to offer this option and that the Panel's decision was reasonable and correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.