Katherine E. Swinton

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor damages for unpaid invoices.

The trial judge had dismissed the appellant's claims for set-off related to water damage caused by the respondent and a disputed administrative mark-up fee.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by misapprehending uncontradicted evidence that established the respondent's negligence caused the water damage, the quantum of the resulting back-charge, and the respondent's failure to perform the services required to earn the mark-up fee.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

The appellant appealed an OMB decision regarding an application by the respondent.

After leave to appeal was partially granted, the lake in question was reclassified as under threshold, rendering the appeal moot.

The respondent subsequently withdrew her application before the OMB.

The parties sought costs for the leave motion, perfection of the appeal, and the appearance.

The Divisional Court ordered no costs, finding that the appeal became moot through external circumstances and no fault of the respondents.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing a denial of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by receiving documentary evidence after the formal hearing without affording the tenant an opportunity to respond, and by failing to address this flaw on reconsideration.

The appeal was allowed, and a new hearing was directed before the Board, with instructions to consider new evidence regarding municipal restrictions.

The insured's vehicle was damaged when her daughter, experiencing an acute psychotic episode, drove it across three lanes of traffic and into a tree.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the daughter's actions were intentional.

The trial judge found the loss was 'accidental' as the daughter lacked conscious control of the vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding and further noting that the innocent insured owner was entitled to coverage regardless, as the event was unexpected from her perspective.

The appellant appealed a tribunal decision finding he was not a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the disability issue, finding the tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no error of law in weighing the medical evidence and prognosis.

However, on consent of the respondent, the matter was remitted to the tribunal for a second hearing to address the appellant's human rights issue.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a written caution issued by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to the applicant's conduct in requiring a female patient to disrobe in front of him without a gown or third party present during an independent medical examination for a fibromyalgia disability claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board and Committee acted reasonably in issuing the caution, which was advisory rather than punitive, and that a two-year delay in the Board's decision did not cause significant prejudice.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from the negligent design of their home's HVAC system.

The trial judge found the defendants negligent but dismissed the claim because damages and causation were not proven.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s. 19(1.1) of the Courts of Justice Act because the claim dismissed was for more than $25,000, and a dismissal for unproven damages is not equivalent to an 'award' of zero under s. 19(1.1)(d).

In the alternative, the court held it would have dismissed the appeal on the merits as the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that reduced his compensation award from $8,000 to $5,000 due to his failure to report the assault to the police.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by failing to consider evidence that a possible concussion inhibited him from reporting the incident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and noting the Board had ample evidence from medical records to conclude the appellant was not suffering from a concussion that would have affected his ability to assist the police.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with one of her complaints due to delay and not to refer six other complaints to a Tribunal for lack of sufficient evidence.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable, that conciliation was not attempted, and that she was denied procedural fairness and subjected to bias by investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's discretionary decisions were reasonable, conciliation had been attempted, and there was no merit to the allegations of bias or denial of procedural fairness.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee finding of professional misconduct and mandatory revocation of his registration for sexually abusing a patient.

The appellant and the complainant had a pre-existing intimate and sexual relationship before she became his patient.

The Divisional Court found the Committee's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider whether the sexual relationship arose out of the pre-existing spousal relationship rather than the professional-patient relationship, misinterpreting the concept of 'incidental' treatment.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision that revoked his licence for practising while suspended.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application because the applicant had not exhausted his statutory right to appeal to the Appeal Panel.

The Court also noted that the application lacked merit, as the Hearing Panel's decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his employment discrimination complaint to a tribunal.

The complaint alleged discrimination based on race and colour.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found that the Commission reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant a referral.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The respondent property owner initially sought retroactive reclassification of his property, but amended his application to seek a fairness hearing regarding his municipal taxes.

The application judge reduced the respondent's taxes owing to $3,000, relying on inherent and equitable jurisdiction.

The municipality appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Assessment Act and Municipal Act provide a comprehensive statutory mechanism for tax assessment and collection, and the application judge lacked jurisdiction to circumvent this framework to alter property classifications or reduce taxes.

The appellant insurer appealed an order granting partial summary judgment which declared that the respondent's action for disability benefits was commenced within the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in holding that a clear and unequivocal denial was necessary to trigger the limitation period.

Because discoverability issues were raised, there was a genuine issue for trial, and the matter should not have been determined on a motion for summary judgment.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant, a teacher, was removed from the occasional teachers' list after sharing conspiracy theories with students.

The union agreed to investigate a grievance but required a psychiatric assessment, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the governing legislation permits the Board to use a consultation process rather than a formal hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative terminated and granting a writ of possession.

The co-operative had withdrawn her rent-geared-to-income subsidy because she failed to disclose her receipt of Ontario Works benefits since 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly concluded the co-operative's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding him liable under an indemnity agreement for a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant signed the agreement and that the landlord made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages.

The court held that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding that he was guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The charges arose after the appellant arrested an individual for public intoxication and failing to identify himself, resulting in an altercation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence, despite deficiencies in the Hearing Officer's reasons regarding credibility findings.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) upholding a finding of misconduct for corrupt practice and the resulting penalty of demotion.

The officer had released an arrested individual without charge and subsequently accepted hockey tickets from him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OCCPS reasonably concluded the officer's actions constituted corrupt practice, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias by the hearing officer, and the penalty was not disproportionate.

The applicant, a lawyer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission prohibiting him from appearing as counsel before it until he provided an unqualified apology for his conduct during a hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission's hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel had pre-judged the matter and prepared its reasons in advance.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively conducting a contempt hearing, a power reserved for the Divisional Court under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The matter was not remitted to the Commission, as the applicant's conduct had already been referred to the Law Society of Upper Canada.