Katherine E. Swinton

The applicants sought judicial review to set aside a settlement reached by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in a subrogated action against the respondent.

The Board, acting as dominus litis, settled the action for $130,000 after considering an independent legal opinion and the applicants' position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decision to compromise the lawsuit was reasonable, dismissing the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose records provided under the Casino Rama Revenue Agreement.

The applicant argued the records contained commercial information and their disclosure would cause harm.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the records related to the administration of funds, not commercial operations, and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of expected harm.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on an appeal involving claims of false arrest and Charter breaches.

The proposed evidence included correspondence, expert reports, and training manuals.

The Divisional Court applied the Sengmueller test and found that the evidence was either not fresh, not relevant, or could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to trial.

The motion was dismissed, although the factum from the court below was accepted to show the arguments made due to a tape erasure.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his civil action for false arrest, wrongful detention, and wrongful search against customs officials.

He alleged he was targeted for a search at Pearson International Airport due to racial profiling.

The trial judge found the customs officer had reasonable grounds for the search based on multiple indicators and that the appellant was not denied his right to counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and no evidence of bias.

The applicant sought to set aside or vary an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed its application for judicial review of an arbitration award administered by a voluntary dispute resolution corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, agreeing with the single judge that jurisdiction to set aside the arbitration award lies exclusively with the Superior Court of Justice under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

Furthermore, the court noted the motion was out of time under Rule 61.16(6) with no grounds justifying an extension.

The applicants sought judicial review and an order of mandamus to compel the Minister of Natural Resources to require public consultation and amendments to Forest Management Plans before two forestry companies could restructure their operations, close certain sawmills, and redirect wood supply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Plans regulate forest operations and sustainability, not the processing of harvested wood at specific mills.

As the restructuring did not change the forest operations or impact sustainability, no Plan amendments or public consultations were required under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Inquiry Officer's report under the Expropriations Act, alleging breaches of procedural fairness including the denial of an adjournment request.

The respondent challenged the Court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction because the Inquiry Officer's report is an important step affecting the property owner's interests.

However, the Court dismissed the application, finding the Inquiry Officer provided detailed reasons for denying the adjournment and did not breach the duty of procedural fairness during the hearing.

The Minister of Transportation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondent $1,110,348 for the expropriation of a portion of her land.

The Minister argued the Board erred by deducting development and delay costs from the 'after value' of the remaining land, contending the compensation should be lower.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly applied the 'before and after' valuation method and properly interpreted the Expropriations Act regarding market value and injurious affection.

The defendants, Nortel Networks Corporation and John Roth, appealed an interlocutory order that struck only portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the entire statement of claim against the appellants, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead the essential elements of negligent misrepresentation, failed to plead material facts to overcome the business judgment rule regarding alleged mismanagement, and lacked standing as an individual shareholder to bring claims for conversion of company property.

The applicant, a social worker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Services Workers to issue a caution against her.

She argued the Committee breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose all complaint letters submitted by the complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee met its limited duty of fairness by providing reasonable information about the allegations and an opportunity to respond.

The court also held that the decision to caution was reasonable given the College's public interest mandate.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it suffered no damages after its loader was damaged by the defendant.

The trial judge had characterized the appellant's payments for the damaged machine as lease costs rather than contributions toward a purchase under a conditional sales contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellant was forced to incur the expense of renting an alternative loader while waiting for the insurance company to write off the original machine, and awarded damages for the rental costs.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had rescinded orders made by a local Medical Officer of Health that prohibited smoking in several hospitality businesses.

The Board found that the Medical Officer of Health exceeded his statutory authority under section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act by issuing blanket, unit-wide orders rather than site-specific ones.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review and awarding costs to the respondent businesses.

The plaintiffs and an intervenor sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against James W. Curran and his former solicitor, J. Perry Borden, following the dismissal of a motion to set aside a consent order.

The motion to set aside was based on unfounded allegations of fraud and deceit against another solicitor, David A. Seed.

The Divisional Court found that Mr. Curran and Mr. Borden acted as joint venturers in pursuing a meritless claim and making groundless fraud allegations.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs against both Mr. Curran and Mr. Borden jointly and severally, and to Mr. Seed against Mr. Curran.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their land under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The appellants' land, located in a Natural Core Area and accessible only by private road, did not permit the construction of a single dwelling under the applicable zoning by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Board that the definition of a bed and breakfast establishment limits such use to a single dwelling that is the principal residence, which could not be built on the appellants' property.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held she was entitled to receive fifty percent of the basic needs component of income support for her three children.

The tribunal found that the appellant shared primary care and control of the children equally with her ex-husband under a joint custody arrangement.

The Divisional Court found no error in the tribunal's conclusion that the children were dependent children only fifty percent of the time, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee who was terminated for absenteeism while incarcerated.

The arbitrator found that the employer acted unreasonably in terminating the employee rather than imposing a less onerous penalty, such as an unpaid suspension, under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and his conclusion that the employer must act reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that he failed to meet the standards of business conduct expected of a CEO and imposing sanctions under s. 127 of the Securities Act.

The Commission found the appellant had primary responsibility for a stock subscription program that lacked commercial justification and failed to take steps to contain the situation when problems emerged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the Commission's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence.

On consent, the appeal regarding sanctions was allowed and remitted to the Commission for a new hearing.

The appellant purchaser appealed a decision finding that a real estate transaction was for a block parcel of land rather than on a square foot basis.

The purchaser argued that the real estate agent misrepresented the land size.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the purchaser was provided a site plan with precise measurements prior to closing and could not have been misled.

Furthermore, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale contained an entire agreement clause, and the purchaser did not make square footage a term of the agreement.

The appellant was ordered by the Ministry of the Environment to remove hundreds of thousands of used tires from its property.

The appellant hired the respondent to perform the cleanup.

After allegedly being paid only a fraction of what it was owed, the respondent registered a construction lien against the property.

The appellant moved to discharge the lien, arguing the work was not an 'improvement' under the Construction Lien Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the removal of contaminated tires constituted an alteration and repair to the land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the removal of the tires was an improvement.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to intervene in an ongoing Ontario Human Rights Tribunal hearing regarding the implementation of remedial orders for workplace discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent unusual circumstances.

The court found no such circumstances, noting the applicants' interests were aligned with the Ministry, which was already a party, and emphasizing the chaotic consequences of granting party standing to every non-party whose conduct is raised in evidence.