Katherine E. Swinton

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $1,000 for injuries sustained in a bar fight.

The Board had reduced the compensation under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act due to the appellant's criminal lifestyle, and under s. 17(2) for his failure to cooperate with police.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Board erred in law by applying s. 17(1) without establishing a nexus between the appellant's conduct and his injuries.

The matter was remitted to the Board to reconsider the compensation amount based solely on the s. 17(2) finding.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision that prohibited assigning teachers more than three courses per semester without agreement.

The school board argued that teachers had an implied duty to act reasonably when refusing consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the provision granted an absolute right to withhold consent was reasonable and well within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The appellant challenged the award of disturbance damages for pre-expropriation business losses and the Board's refusal to reduce the property's market value due to environmental contaminants.

The respondents cross-appealed the Board's refusal to award interest on the disturbance damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the law regarding disturbance damages and reasonably concluded that the environmental contaminants did not reduce the property's market value.

The Court also upheld the refusal to award interest on disturbance damages, as it is not provided for in the Act.

The appeal was allowed only to correct an arithmetical error in the business loss calculation.

The appellant, Mayor Robert Ford, appealed a decision declaring his seat vacant for violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA).

The application judge found the appellant breached the MCIA by speaking and voting on a council motion to rescind a previous council decision that required him to reimburse $3,150 in donations to his private football foundation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the original reimbursement order was ultra vires the City of Toronto Act, 2006, which only permits reprimands or suspensions of remuneration for Code of Conduct violations.

Because the financial sanction was a nullity, the appellant did not have a pecuniary interest when he voted to rescind it, and therefore did not contravene the MCIA.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for permitting illegal acts, specifically drug trafficking, in his unit.

The tenant argued the Board's reasons were defective and failed to consider relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons were sufficient, supported by ample evidence of drugs and weapons in the unit, and that the Board properly considered and rejected relief from forfeiture due to the risk posed to other residents.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting carriage of a class action against Armtec Infrastructure Inc. to a competing group of plaintiffs and staying his action.

The Divisional Court reviewed the test for determining carriage motions in class actions, confirming that the motion judge correctly identified and applied the test from Setterington.

The court held that the motion judge's qualitative analysis of the competing actions and his ultimate decision to grant carriage to the competing action was an exercise of discretion entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of four decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had dismissed his complaint of disability discrimination against his former employer and union.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, finding it reasonable to bar re-litigation of facts decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rejecting allegations of bias, and finding no denial of procedural fairness in refusing late document production.

The Court also found the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the applicant's termination was based on misconduct, not disability.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission dismissing his application under s. 144 of the Securities Act to set aside a settlement agreement.

The appellant argued the agreement should be set aside due to non-disclosure by Commission staff regarding an investigation into a key witness for breaching a cease trade order.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found the Commission's decision not to revoke the settlement was reasonable, as the undisclosed information would not likely have affected the outcome of the administrative proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a city councilor, appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for defamation arising from an email exchange with the respondent, a community activist.

The trial judge had found that the appellant's email was defamatory and that the defence of qualified privilege was defeated by malice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to state and apply the correct legal tests for qualified privilege and malice.

Specifically, the trial judge erred by conflating the objective and subjective standards for honest belief and by failing to determine whether an improper purpose was the appellant's dominant motive.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the appellant not to carry out a proposal to suspend the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and its salespersons.

The appellant argued the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable given the dealership's failure to provide adequate financial records and a salesperson's breach of registration conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the correct legal principles and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence, including expert accounting testimony that the dealership could reasonably be expected to carry on business in a financially responsible manner.

The appellant subcontractor registered a construction lien after not being paid.

The respondent mortgagee posted security to vacate the liens.

The property was sold, but proceeds were insufficient to pay the mortgages.

The appellant argued the posted security should cover the full amount owed by the owner to the general contractor, while the respondent argued it was limited to the 10 percent statutory holdback.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 78(2) of the Construction Lien Act, the mortgagee has priority over all but the basic holdback, and section 44(6) prevents the notice holdback from extending to the posted security.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment that dismissed his claim for unpaid renovation fees and the respondents' counterclaim for defective work, while ordering the appellant to pay substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by implying a contractual term requiring the appellant to provide warranties, which contradicted the express written terms of the contract.

The court set aside the trial judgment, dismissed the counterclaim, and awarded the appellant his unpaid invoices totaling $22,727.54.

Two hospitals sought judicial review of arbitration awards that found they violated their collective agreements by contracting out the work of Sterile Processing Technicians without issuing layoff notices.

The arbitrators held that the contracting out resulted in a layoff, entitling affected employees to notice and bumping rights.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the applications, finding that the arbitrators' interpretation of the collective agreements was justified, transparent, intelligible, and within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellants/applicants sought to appeal and judicially review an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding the composition of a panel for a sanctions hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under s. 9(1) of the Securities Act, which only permits appeals from final decisions.

The application for judicial review was quashed as premature, as the procedural fairness and jurisdictional issues could be raised after the final decision.

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment on an appeal, the respondent Aviva Canada Inc. requested that the court reopen its decision based on a recently released Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the standard of review.

Aviva argued that the new decision altered the applicable standard of review from reasonableness to correctness due to concurrent jurisdiction provisions in the Insurance Act.

The court denied the request, noting that the parties did not agree an error had been made and finding that it was not in the interests of justice to withdraw the reasons and rehear the case on the merits.

The appellant grandmother appealed a summary judgment order finding her grandson to be a child in need of protection and making him a Crown ward with no access.

The grandmother argued the motions judge erred in applying the summary judgment test and assessing credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test and did not improperly weigh evidence or assess credibility, as the material issue was the undisputed lack of a relationship between the grandmother and the child.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent $45,000 plus costs.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, relying on defences of gratuitous bailment and ex turpi causa.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the full appreciation test from Combined Air.

The motions judge was entitled to evaluate credibility under Rule 20.04(2.1) and properly concluded the appellant's evidence was unbelievable and full of contradictions.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict and a trial judge's ruling on a threshold motion following a motor vehicle accident.

The jury found the appellant 10% liable and awarded $4,000, which was reduced to zero due to income replacement benefits.

The trial judge dismissed the claim for non-pecuniary damages, finding the appellant did not sustain a permanent serious impairment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial accommodations, evidentiary rulings, the threshold decision, the jury charge, the verdict, and alleged trial judge bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's rulings and ample evidence to support the jury's verdict.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's implementation of smart metering for electricity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act in concluding that the landlord was entitled to increase rent for adding electricity as a prescribed service and that payments to an independent contractor were not illegal charges.

The court also held that the Board's findings on harassment and coercion were factual and raised no question of law.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding regarding the prescription of CHAMPIX, a smoking cessation medication, and the subsequent $300,000 costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification decision.

The court held that the motions judge applied well-established legal principles and made no palpable and overriding error of fact or law.

The costs award was also upheld as there was no error in principle.