Katherine E. Swinton

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which found that a real estate agent's past criminal conduct (assault and breach of a conditional sentence) did not meet the statutory threshold for revoking his registration, but warranted the imposition of conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal has jurisdiction under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 to impose conditions on a registrant even in the absence of a finding that the past conduct threshold for revocation was met.

The court also found that the tribunal's conclusion that the threshold was not met was reasonable.

The appellant appealed an order declaring a 'Covenant and Postponement of Claim' valid and enforceable against it.

The appellant argued it was a guarantor, not a principal debtor, and was released from liability due to a failure to receive a demand notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the specific language of the Covenant precluded the appellant from relying on the lack of notice, and that the appellant had ratified the events that might have otherwise entitled it to release.

The appellant appealed the application judge's interpretation of a Separation Agreement.

The Court of Appeal found no error, holding that because the deceased never revoked his will, the gift to the respondent remained valid.

The appeal and a motion for fresh evidence were dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant landlord appealed an order regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The issues included the commencement date of the lease, the commencement date for parking space rent, and the payment of a leasehold improvements allowance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the lease commenced when the demising walls were built and the premises were delivered, and that parking rent commenced when the parking spaces were turned over.

The court amended the order on consent to direct the leasehold improvements allowance to be paid directly to the sub-tenant.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's dismissal of her claims for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness, errors in calculating income for income replacement benefits, and failure to consider a treatment plan.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in fact or law, nor any breach of natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court issued an endorsement as to costs following an appeal.

Having reviewed the written submissions from both parties, the court fixed the costs payable to the successful respondent at $4,000.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto.

The proposed class action alleged the City was negligent in failing to send statutory notices of rent reduction to tenants of rooming houses after municipal property taxes were reduced.

The motions judge had found it plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care to the tenants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that based on the statutory scheme and the specific relationship created by the Parkdale Pilot Project, it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care.

The proceeding was certified as a class action.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the respondent union was a 'trade union' within the meaning of s. 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent could not be an organization of employees because its constitution allowed independent employee organizations to be members, and that it lacked an identifiable set of rules due to irregularities in the election of its founding officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable and that the founding members could unanimously waive or vary the provisions of the union's constitution.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding that $43,120 in Canadian currency was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activity under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, and ordering its forfeiture to the Crown.

The appellant argued the application judge improperly shifted the onus of proof.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence, which included expert testimony, a NARC test, a drug dog hit, and the bundling of the money.

The defendants in an oppression action brought a motion to vary an order of a Superior Court judge who had dismissed their motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The moving party relied on s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the motion for want of jurisdiction, holding that s. 21(5) only permits a panel to vary a decision of a judge who has heard a motion in the Divisional Court, not a Superior Court judge acting in a gatekeeper capacity for leave to appeal.

The applicant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside a decision of a single judge who declined to grant an interlocutory injunction preventing the enforcement of conditions on a liquor licence.

The applicant also sought to admit fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it would not have affected the outcome.

Applying the Housen standard of review, the court found the single judge made no error in applying the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctive relief.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant employer sought judicial review to quash an arbitration award concerning a retiring employee's entitlement to vacation pay.

The employee retired in April after taking five weeks of his six-week annual vacation entitlement.

The employer argued that under the collective agreement, the vacation entitlement should be prorated to the time worked in the year of retirement, and sought recovery of the extra vacation pay.

The arbitrator found the collective agreement language clear and unambiguous, holding that proration only applied to unused earned vacation, and the employee owed no repayment.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision denying him supplementary benefits for medical transportation and surgical supplies under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Tribunal erred in law by failing to address the appellant's uncontradicted evidence that he had submitted the required form for medical transportation costs.

The matter was referred back to the Director to determine the amount of transportation benefits owed.

The appeal regarding surgical supplies was dismissed as no error of law was shown.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they breached the Securities Act by trading and distributing securities to offshore investors without registration or a prospectus.

The appellants argued the Commission lacked constitutional jurisdiction because the distributions occurred outside Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding a sufficient connection between the appellants' activities and Ontario to justify regulatory action, as the appellants were Ontario residents, used an Ontario transfer agent, and deposited funds in Ontario bank accounts.

The court also upheld the Commission's costs award as reasonable.

The plaintiffs appealed a trial judgment regarding a contract for the construction of a home that was destroyed by fire before completion.

The trial judge found the plaintiffs had terminated the contract and awarded the defendant $100,000 on its counterclaim for lost profits, while awarding the plaintiffs a small net judgment from insurance proceeds.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the plaintiffs terminated the contract but found the trial judge erred in calculating the insurance trust funds and the counterclaim damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the counterclaim to $20,000 and varying the net judgment in favour of the plaintiffs to $60,765.

The landlord appealed a decision denying her application to terminate a residential tenancy for her own use and the use of her children.

The initial application was denied because possession was sought for her children, not herself.

A subsequent application was denied on the basis of res judicata.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding res judicata inapplicable or subject to discretion, and incorporated the parties' Minutes of Settlement into the court order.

The applicant union brought an application for judicial review of an arbitration award that denied a grievance claiming a retired employee was entitled to three additional weeks of vacation pay.

The grievance turned on the interpretation of a Clarity Note in the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Clarity Note and the collective agreement was reasonable and met the Dunsmuir requirements of transparency, intelligibility, and justification.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which suspended its liquor licence for 14 days after finding it allowed overcrowding and permitted a patron to smoke marijuana on the licensed patio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appeal lies only on a question of law, and the appellant's grounds were essentially challenges to the Board's findings of fact and credibility determinations.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing his grievances against the Police Services Board.

The arbitrator had ruled that the applicant lacked standing to proceed to arbitration because his police association refused to take carriage of the grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that under the Police Services Act and the collective agreement, an individual officer does not have the right to arbitrate a grievance against the employer without the association's support.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision not to process an application for the renewal of a body rub parlour licence.

The licence had automatically terminated under the municipal by-law when the controlling interest in the applicant corporation was transferred following the death of its principal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the automatic termination constituted a lawful revocation under the by-law, which permanently reduced the number of available licences and left the City with no authority to issue a new one.