Katherine E. Swinton

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board which held that it lacked jurisdiction to order the implementation of a low-income rate affordability program for natural gas consumers.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the broad statutory authority to fix 'just and reasonable rates' using 'any method or technique' permitted the Board to consider ability to pay.

The majority concluded that while cost of service is the starting point, the Board has the jurisdiction to implement differential pricing to protect the interests of low-income consumers.

The defendant appealed a decision of a motions judge that set aside a case management master's order requiring the non-resident plaintiffs to post security for costs.

The Divisional Court resolved conflicting jurisprudence regarding the standard of review for appeals from a master, holding that the standard is the same as for appeals from a judge: correctness for errors of law, and palpable and overriding error for findings of fact.

The court found that the motions judge erred by treating the appeal as a hearing de novo and substituting his own view of the evidence regarding the plaintiffs' impecuniosity.

The master's finding that impecuniosity had not been established was entitled to deference, and her order for security for costs was restored.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to not deal with her complaint against the University of Windsor.

The applicant alleged that the university's policy of keeping her failed first-year marks on her transcript was discriminatory.

The Commission dismissed the complaint because it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's decision reasonable and holding that the ongoing presence of the marks on the transcript constituted continuing effects of a past act, not a continuing contravention of the Code.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision that upheld Woodbine Entertainment Group's (WEG) indefinite suspension of his racing privileges.

The suspension followed the discovery of Erythropoetin (EPO) in three of the applicant's horses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably balanced WEG's private property and contractual rights with the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the horse racing industry.

On a judicial review application, certain respondents moved to strike an exhibit to an affidavit submitted by the Ministry of the Environment.

The exhibit, which detailed a delegation of authority under the Environmental Bill of Rights, was tendered to show that the Minister's obligations had not been delegated.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and struck the exhibit, holding that it was not part of the record before the tribunal and that the rare circumstances permitting the supplementation of the record on judicial review, such as showing jurisdictional error, did not apply.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld the cancellation of his disability benefits.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by finding he and another individual met the definition of 'spouse' under O. Reg. 222/98, asserting that a mutual written declaration was required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal made no error of law and was entitled to consider surrounding circumstances to determine if a declaration had been made.

The appellant wife appealed an order that terminated her spousal support and was marked as a final order, despite being made on a motion for interim support.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to make a final order on an interim motion.

The Court also held the motions judge erred in principle by terminating support without considering the wife's ongoing economic disadvantage and financial need, despite imputing an income to her.

The appeal was allowed, and interim spousal support was ordered at a reduced rate based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines until September 2008.

The respondent, Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, sought costs of $2,000 following a successful application.

The applicant opposed the costs award due to financial circumstances.

The court awarded the requested $2,000, noting it was a fair and reasonable amount given the total bill of costs exceeded $17,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the National CAIS Committee - Ontario Appeals Sub-Committee regarding agricultural stabilization benefits.

The applicant argued the Committee made findings of fact without evidence and that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because a policy advisor to the Administration retired with the Committee during its deliberations.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the presence of the policy advisor during deliberations created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decision was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant Registrar appealed a Board decision granting a liquor licence to the respondent nightclub.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly consider the past conduct of the respondent's principal and the public interest concerns of local residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal tests, properly weighed the evidence, and provided adequate reasons for its conclusions.

The respondent, a former police officer and whistleblower regarding child sexual abuse allegations, refused to testify before the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

He was previously found in civil contempt and ordered by the court to appear and testify.

He deliberately and publicly defied this order, orchestrating his arrest before the media and supporters.

The court sentenced him to six months' imprisonment for civil contempt and found him guilty of criminal contempt, with sentencing for the criminal contempt deferred until the completion of his civil sentence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant's undertakings would not be carried out in accordance with law or with integrity, and that there were problems with technical competence based on past chargeable conciliations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the Tribunal's findings of fact were reasonable and supported by ample evidence.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Toronto Licensing Tribunal decision revoking their tow truck operator licenses.

They argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment when their agent failed to appear, instead allowing two police witnesses to testify in chief.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the agent's subsequent refusal to cross-examine the witnesses and the Tribunal's overall fair conduct cured any initial prejudice.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new hearing, finding the initial refusal to adjourn and the admission of highly prejudicial, uninterrupted testimony fundamentally unfair.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed its application for an above-guideline rent increase related to lobby renovations.

The Adjudicator had dismissed the claim due to missing schedules in the contract and concerns about a non-arms-length relationship between the landlord's agent and the contractor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Adjudicator erred in law by relying on an irrelevant corporate relationship and breached procedural fairness by failing to consider the landlord's requests to file the missing documents.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator for rehearing.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal adding a former human resources administrator as a respondent party to an unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the administrator as a party, as the complaint contained no allegations that she personally breached the Agricultural Employees Protection Act.

The Court dismissed the bias allegations, finding that the applicants had waived their objections and failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Tribunal failed to make necessary findings of fact regarding the mailing and receipt of a letter, and took into account irrelevant considerations.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a Complaints Committee's finding of no misconduct by his treating physicians.

The applicant argued that the Committee breached procedural fairness by withholding the identity of an independent assessor, thereby preventing cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Committee exercises a screening function and owes a limited duty of procedural fairness to complainants, which does not include the right to cross-examine an assessor.

The Crown sought costs for an initial pleadings motion, motions for leave to appeal, and the appeal, claiming success in having portions of the action struck and obtaining a stay.

The respondent argued for costs, asserting general success.

The Divisional Court found success on the appeal was divided and awarded no costs for the appeal or leave motions.

However, the court found the respondent achieved substantial success on the original motion and awarded the respondent costs of the motion fixed at $27,000, reduced by 25% to reflect partial success.

The corporate respondents sought costs of $32,950.29 on a partial indemnity basis following their success on an application for judicial review.

The applicants, represented by community legal clinics, argued no costs should be awarded as the application raised an issue of public interest regarding the related employer provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, finding the applicants were individuals of limited means who brought the application in good faith to enforce protective legislation, and the case raised an issue of importance for other vulnerable employees.

Following a successful appeal by the defendant, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle the appeal.

The court held that Rule 49 does not apply to offers to settle appeals and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the costs at $12,000 for fees plus disbursements and GST, finding the appellant's claimed hours slightly excessive for a case dismissed at the pleadings stage.