Katherine E. Swinton

The plaintiffs brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that required them to pay $20,000 as security for costs.

The motion was brought well past the four-day time limit prescribed by Rule 61.16(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court declined to extend the time for the motion, noting the plaintiffs' repeated failure to meet deadlines, the lack of evidence explaining the delay, and the prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

Eight police officers sought judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Police Services Board allowing the Chief of Police to delay serving Notices of Hearing for public complaints arising from the G20 summit.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application for prematurity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interlocutory administrative decision.

The court noted the officers had an adequate alternative remedy to raise the issue of prejudice caused by delay through an abuse of process motion before the hearing officer.

The appellant, a physician licensed in New Brunswick with a 'Defined Licence' subject to ongoing clinical activity in the province, appealed a decision denying him an independent practice certificate in Ontario.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upheld the College's decision, finding that the New Brunswick licence was not 'equivalent' to an Ontario certificate under the interprovincial mobility provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'equivalent' was reasonable given Ontario's standards-based approach compared to New Brunswick's needs-based discretionary licence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to award a water meter supply and installation contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued the City breached procedural fairness by using undisclosed evaluation criteria, specifically a technical ratio and a 5-year evaluation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Request for Proposals granted the City broad discretion and explicitly stated selection would be based on merit and price ratio.

The court also excluded the applicant's proffered expert evidence on procurement fairness, finding it unnecessary to assist the court.

The maternal grandmother appealed a motions judge's decision confirming the jurisdiction of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa to apprehend two children residing temporarily with her in Quebec.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the children's habitual residence remained in Ontario and that the collaborative cross-border apprehension with Quebec authorities was a practical and legal solution.

The court confirmed the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over the child protection proceedings.

The maternal grandmother appealed a decision confirming the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court and the legality of the apprehension of two children in Quebec by the Ottawa Children's Aid Society (CAS) in collaboration with Quebec child protection authorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the children were habitually resident in Ontario, the cross-border apprehension was a practical and legal solution in the children's best interests, and the Ontario court had jurisdiction to hear the protection application.

The appellant appealed a child support order, challenging the imputation of rental income, retroactive support, and the imputation of income during a period of voluntary leave.

The Divisional Court upheld the decisions on rental income and retroactive support.

However, the court found a palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that there was no evidence the appellant's leave was taken to care for his infant child.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the imputation of income for the leave period and adjusting the costs order accordingly.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the effective date for retroactive salary adjustments for employees newly included in the bargaining unit.

The arbitrator had ruled that compensation would run from the date an employee was found or agreed to come within the unit, rather than the date of the initial grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's remedial decision was reasonable given the complex, multi-year dispute involving multiple unions and hundreds of disputed positions.

The applicant, a postgraduate medical resident in Cardiac Surgery, sought judicial review of a university Senate Appeals Committee decision requiring her to enter a six-month remediation period before advancing to the next year of her program.

She argued the decision was unreasonable and that she was denied procedural fairness due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, an inability to cross-examine witnesses, and inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the academic decision was reasonable and that the requirements of procedural fairness were met, noting courts should only interfere in university academic affairs in cases of manifest unfairness.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Board decision refusing to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.

The Registrar sought revocation because the respondent's sole officer and director was actively involved in the Hell's Angels.

The Registrar argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct 'reasonable grounds for belief' standard and properly assessed all pertinent factors regarding the operation of the licensed establishment.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The applicant argued the Director failed to comply with regulatory requirements and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both personal and public interest standing.

In the alternative, the court held that the Director's decision to dispense with strict compliance with notice requirements was reasonable, and the consultation process met the common law requirements of procedural fairness.

The appellant, an internationally trained teacher from France, appealed the refusal of the Ontario College of Teachers Accreditation Committee to grant her a certificate of qualification.

The Committee found she met the linguistic and degree requirements but concluded her distance education program did not meet the professional education requirement.

The Divisional Court found the Committee's decision unreasonable because it focused on extraneous factors, such as the program being online and not granting a diploma, rather than assessing whether the program was substantially different from an accredited Ontario program.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Committee for reassessment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision that dismissed an appeal from an Arbitrator.

The Arbitrator had dismissed the applicant's arbitration proceeding because of a parallel civil action raising accident benefit claims from the same accident.

The Divisional Court found no error regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and held that the Director's Delegate reasonably upheld the Arbitrator's decision on choice of forum, noting the diseconomies of parallel proceedings.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying him an extension of time to request a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The appellant had missed the 15-day deadline by three days.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the LAT's decision, finding that the LAT reasonably applied the Frey v. Macdonald factors, including the lack of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the lack of merit to the appeal.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Ottawa's Senate Appeals Committee dismissing him from the neurosurgery residency program for unprofessional and disruptive behaviour.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness, the decision was unreasonable, and his Charter right to freedom of expression was violated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeals Committee's de novo hearing cured any earlier procedural defects, the decision to dismiss was reasonable given the applicant's pattern of inflammatory emails and absenteeism, and the Charter did not apply to the university's internal academic disciplinary process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision dismissing its application to review an IIROC Hearing Panel's refusal to stay proceedings.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction and could not provide procedural fairness because it lacked the power to compel non-member witnesses, which would prevent the applicant from making full answer and defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the stay motion was premature, as any prejudice regarding missing evidence is best assessed during the hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, brought a motion to vary an order that quashed his affidavit filed in support of an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion in part, finding that the motions judge erred in striking portions of the affidavit that went to an essential finding of fact regarding anti-union animus and alleged denials of procedural fairness.

The court reinstated specific paragraphs of the affidavit while upholding the exclusion of the remainder.

The self-represented appellant succeeded on his appeal to the Divisional Court and sought costs for the hearing before the Social Benefits Tribunal and disbursements for the appeal.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to award costs before the Tribunal.

The court awarded the appellant $941.80 in disbursements for the appeal, deducting $300 claimed for parking and meals for a group who helped him, but allowing $100 for office services.

The applicant, a graduate student, sought judicial review of a university disciplinary decision that resulted in a formal reprimand for harassment under the Code of Student Conduct.

He argued that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not permitted legal representation at the initial hearing before the Vice-Provost, that the decision was unreasonable, and that it violated his Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was fair given the context and minor sanctions, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply, the decision was reasonable, and the Charter did not apply to the university's internal disciplinary process.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal had confirmed an overpayment of $3,050 against the respondent but ordered the Director to collect only half of it at $10 per month due to financial hardship.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an overpayment is a debt due to the Crown and neither the Director nor the Tribunal has the statutory authority to forgive any part of it.