Katherine E. Swinton

Air Canada sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that directed it to offer 90 denied Voluntary Separation Program (VSP) applications to eligible employees.

Air Canada argued the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by modifying the collective agreement and interfering with management rights.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the arbitrator was properly interpreting the quantitative language of the Memorandum of Understanding, which required the maximum number of VSPs to be granted.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a $128,000 costs order made against him by the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors following findings of professional misconduct.

He argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the quantum was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Health Professions Procedural Code's costs provisions prevailed and that the quantum was reasonable given the length and complexity of the hearing, the serious nature of the misconduct, and the appellant's refusal to admit wrongdoing.

The appellant appealed a costs order of the Discipline Committee and brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the appellant was attempting an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying merits decision, which had already been upheld on appeal.

Furthermore, the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission as it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

The Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) and Dr. Khan both sought costs following the dismissal of Dr. Khan's motion to stay a hearing of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Hospital regarding the termination of his hospital privileges.

The court found that the MAC was largely successful on the motion, as the hearing was allowed to proceed with only a delay in the release of the decision.

The court awarded costs to the MAC in the amount of $9,500 on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the motion was not legally or factually complex.

The applicant, a child with autism, sought judicial review of a decision to discharge her from a regional Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) program.

The program's clinical director determined after a 12-month assessment that the therapy was not resulting in cognitive and learning improvements.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and the process lacked procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the clinical decision was reasonable and the applicant was afforded procedural fairness through evaluations, meetings, and an independent review mechanism.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they owed the respondent commission under an oral contract for the sale of stone.

The appellants argued the trial judge ignored evidence that not all the stone had been sold, which was the triggering term for the commission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The trial judge's conclusion was supported by the respondent's evidence, which she found credible, and an admission by the appellants that commission was owed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for unpaid tree removal services and ordering it to repay garnished funds with punitive costs.

The trial judge had found no contract existed for the tree removal because the respondent subjectively did not intend to agree to it.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply an objective test for contract formation.

Based on the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude a contract existed.

The court also found the trial judge erred in awarding punitive costs under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act without a principled basis.

Judgment was entered for the appellant.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which awarded compensation to a worker injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving home after responding to an emergency call outside normal working hours.

The Appeals Tribunal applied the Board's Travelling Policy, finding the worker was in the course of his employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Appeals Tribunal's decision was reasonable, within its jurisdiction, and properly applied the mandatory Board policy.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's refusal to declare a mistrial and recuse himself from a statutory accident benefits arbitration.

The applicant argued that the arbitrator's exposure to settlement offers and off-the-record discussions during an emotional outburst by the self-represented respondent created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's knowledge of settlement information did not automatically mandate a mistrial and that his handling of the situation did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Town of Collingwood sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed an appeal respecting the Education Development Charge By-laws of two school boards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Town failed to identify any arguable error of law in the Board's decision, as the issues raised primarily involved questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the registration of a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Tribunal had excused the respondents' failure to disclose numerous prior convictions due to language barriers and ignorance of the law.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly assess whether the respondents' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity in the future.

The applicant trade unions sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing their application to declare Cadillac Fairview a related or successor employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board had found that the amalgamation of two corporations did not erode bargaining rights and that there was no sale of a business.

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

The applicant sought an order of mandamus compelling the City of Toronto to issue notices of rent reduction to tenants of 29 residential complexes, following a reduction in municipal property taxes.

The City admitted it failed to provide the notices within the prescribed time under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mandamus, finding that issuing the notices years late could mislead tenants, as the one-year limitation period to claim a rent reduction had already expired.

The court also declined to grant a declaration of the City's statutory breach, as it would have no practical effect, but allowed a motion to add a tenant as a party.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion under Rule 45.02 for an order preserving a sum of money held as cash collateral.

The appellant argued that its obligations under a Letter of Credit Agreement were discharged because the respondent entered into a forbearance agreement with the principal borrower, materially altering the guaranteed loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement was for a standby letter of credit, not a guarantee, and thus the law of guarantees did not apply.

Furthermore, the cash collateral was not a specific fund to which the appellant had a proprietary claim, and the appellant had implicitly ratified the forbearance agreement by participating in the borrower's insolvency proceedings without objection.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that awarded the tenants a rent abatement and compensation for alleged breaches of maintenance obligations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to address significant evidence from the landlord and by failing to provide adequate reasons for the quantum of the abatement and compensation.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Director's Delegate cancelling its Certificate of Revival under the Business Corporations Act.

The Delegate found the certificate invalid because the mandatory consent of the Minister of Finance was not attached to the Articles of Revival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Delegate's decision was reasonable and that the appellant was afforded procedural fairness.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for obstructing a College investigation into a complaint against another physician.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction, erred in denying a stay of proceedings, and made an unreasonable finding of misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Executive Committee had broad statutory authority to refer the matter, the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process did not apply, and the finding that the appellant intentionally provided false information to mislead the investigation was reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board refusing to order pre-hearing disclosure of police investigation records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature as the administrative proceedings were not complete and no exceptional circumstances existed.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Board, as an impartial adjudicative body, lacks the statutory authority to compel third parties, such as police officers, to provide pre-hearing disclosure.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for compensation because he failed to promptly report the assault to police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as the applicant had not exhausted his statutory appeal rights.

Treating the matter as an appeal, the Court found no error of law in the Board's decision, noting the Board properly exercised its discretion under s. 17(2) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act based on the applicant's delay in reporting the incident.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of two interest arbitration awards that ordered retroactive wage increases for employees who were no longer actively employed.

The hospital argued that retroactivity was not a matter in dispute between the parties and that the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction and denied procedural fairness by deciding the issue without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that the board's decision was unreasonable because it failed to explain why it was necessary to deal with retroactivity when the parties had agreed it was not in dispute.

The Court also found a denial of procedural fairness and set aside the portion of the awards dealing with retroactivity.