Katherine E. Swinton

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Katz Group Canada Inc., sought costs after being wholly successful in their judicial review applications against the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The respondents argued the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.

The Divisional Court rejected the duplication argument, noting the complexity and importance of the first-instance proceeding.

The court awarded Katz Group its full claimed costs, but reduced Shoppers Drug Mart's fee claim from $104,354 to $80,000 due to excessive hours and duplication among its legal team.

The appellant husband appealed an order reinstating his pleadings on the condition that he comply with a disclosure order and pay $35,000 in interim disbursements plus costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the interim disbursements condition because the motions judge failed to provide reasons, consider the appellant's ability to pay, or give notice that this issue would be decided.

The conditions regarding disclosure and costs were upheld.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for personal liability against the individual respondent, Stewart.

The claim arose from home renovation contracts signed under the business name 'Renoclub', which failed to disclose the underlying numbered corporation in breach of the Business Corporations Act and Business Names Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that such breaches do not automatically result in personal liability, and that the evidence established the appellants knew they were dealing with a corporation rather than Stewart personally.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review for a declaration that the Ministry of Transportation unreasonably withheld a clearance letter for a subdivision development.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the Ministry was still actively reviewing the engineering drawings.

The Court further held that the appropriate forum to address difficulties in implementing draft plan approval conditions is the Ontario Municipal Board, which retained jurisdiction over the matter.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision not to report an alleged contravention of the Election Finances Act by a third-party advertiser to the Attorney General.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the Chief Electoral Officer's handling of the complaint did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also found the challenge to the third party's 2007 registration to be moot.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order that permitted the respondent to be represented by a paralegal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that it is reluctant to interfere with Small Claims Court interlocutory orders on judicial review unless there is a lack of jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice.

The court found no such breach and emphasized that the purpose of the Small Claims Court is to provide expeditious and low-cost resolution of disputes, which precludes appeals from interlocutory orders.

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the arbitrability of a grievance.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, applying the general rule that courts will not entertain judicial review of preliminary rulings while tribunal proceedings are pending, absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify bifurcating the ruling from the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint against his employer and union to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He alleged a denial of natural justice because the Commission failed to interview certain witnesses and consider evidence of systemic discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the un-interviewed witnesses lacked direct knowledge, and holding that the Commission's conclusion of insufficient evidence of discrimination was reasonable given the applicant's objective test scores.

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was cancelled in 1997 following a criminal conviction, applied for a new Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Registrar referred the application to the Discipline Committee pursuant to s. 33(15) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing he should be treated as a new applicant under s. 18 and that s. 33(15) could not apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the legislative amendment applied retrospectively as its purpose was to protect the public, not to punish, and the Registrar did not breach any duty of fairness.

The City of St. Catharines sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the release of a report considered during an in camera municipal council meeting.

The report concerned a property owner's request to acquire city land or obtain an encroachment agreement.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness for the Commissioner's interpretation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but correctness for the Municipal Act.

Although the Adjudicator erred in finding the meeting was improperly closed under the Municipal Act, the ultimate decision to release most of the report was reasonable because the report did not reveal the actual substance of the in camera deliberations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant insurance company appealed a decision dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent homeowners.

The respondents had sued for damages following unsatisfactory home repairs after a flood.

The appellant failed to file a statement of defence despite multiple extensions, and delayed several months before moving to set aside the default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that while the motions judge erred in concluding there was no arguable defence on the merits, she correctly found the appellant failed to explain the default or move promptly.

Weighing all factors, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal, finding the justice of the case required denying relief due to the appellant's unexplained delay.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP imposing an administrative charge of $81,450 for 543 unauthorized payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the General Manager had no duty to refer the administrative charge issue to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, as the Board's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing unauthorized payments.

The Court confirmed the General Manager's authority to impose a $150 administrative charge for each unauthorized payment under the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004.

Furthermore, the Court noted it would have declined to grant the discretionary remedy of judicial review due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application.

Following a successful appeal by the respondents, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs of $41,762.66, while the appellant sought substantial indemnity costs for a prior motion.

The Divisional Court ordered each party to bear its own costs of the motion and fixed the respondents' costs of the appeal at $20,000, finding the amount claimed to be beyond what was fair and reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that partially denied her claim for compensation following the shooting death of her son.

The Board had denied her claim for mental or nervous shock and reduced her award for funeral expenses because the victim's behaviour contributed to his death.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of the legal test for mental or nervous shock or its reduction of funeral expenses under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed two decisions of its Discipline Committee acquitting a veterinarian of various allegations of professional misconduct, including animal abuse, misdiagnosis, and inappropriate comments.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee's reasons were woefully inadequate, failed to address material evidence, contained inconsistent findings, and were ultimately unreasonable.

The matters were remitted to a differently constituted panel for new hearings.

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of severed portions of statistical reports regarding court activity.

The reports were created by the Ministry at the request of the Chief Justice.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commissioner erred in finding the reports were under the Ministry's 'control', the reports were nonetheless in the Ministry's 'custody' because they were integrated into the Ministry's operations and used for its own core functions.

The court concluded that disclosing the severed portions would not compromise judicial independence and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that she was not a tenant but a mere occupant of the rental unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot because the appellant had already been evicted.

Furthermore, the court held the Board did not err in applying the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, as the appellant occupied the premises with the permission of the actual tenant and was never an unauthorized occupant prior to the termination of the tenancy.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award dismissing its grievance for delay.

The arbitrator found that the union failed to explain a one-year delay in scheduling the resumption of the arbitration hearing, contrary to the collective agreement's requirement to expedite proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and exercise of discretion to be reasonable, and noting that the union's delay in perfecting the judicial review application also militated against granting relief.

The appellant, a lawyer appealing a professional discipline decision, requested an adjournment of his appeal hearing one week before the scheduled date in order to retain counsel.

The court noted the request was almost devoid of merit given the appellant's prior delays and failure to perfect the appeal on time.

However, recognizing this was the appellant's last chance to restore his professional life and finding no risk to the public, the court granted a final indulgence.

The appeal was adjourned peremptorily, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs of $1,500 to the respondent.

The applicants, who own and operate pharmacies in Ontario, challenged the validity of provincial regulations that prohibited 'private label' generic drugs from being designated as interchangeable or listed for public reimbursement.

The Divisional Court held that the regulations were ultra vires the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act.

The Court found that the enabling statutes authorized the imposition of conditions, not absolute prohibitions, and that the ban on private label products was extraneous to the legislative purpose of controlling drug costs.

The regulations were declared invalid and of no force and effect.