Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found a deemed termination of a grievor's employment, entitling him to termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the arbitrator breached natural justice by deciding the case on the basis of frustration of contract—an issue not advanced by the union—without allowing the parties to address it.

The Court also found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he failed to determine a specific termination date and ignored evidence of a continuing employment relationship.

The appellants, an architect and his firm, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects finding them guilty of professional misconduct.

The misconduct involved affixing a seal to a design not prepared under the architect's personal supervision and knowingly misrepresenting to a building inspector that construction complied with the Building Code despite the presence of non-compliant French doors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Committee's jurisdiction, its interpretation of the regulations, and its conclusion that peer evidence was not required to find the conduct dishonourable.

The penalty of a four-month suspension and costs was also upheld.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application under the Road Access Act to close an access road on their land, which provided the sole motor vehicle access to the respondents' cottage.

The parties had been litigating over the road for 20 years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' application was an attempt to relitigate an issue that was res judicata due to a 2005 consent order.

The court also found that the respondents had a legal right to use the road based on previous agreements and court orders.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for unpaid rent and dismissing the appellant's counterclaim for damage to its goods.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the arrangement was a license rather than a lease, and found no palpable and overriding error in the dismissal of the counterclaim due to insufficient evidence of causation.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the respondent's damages from six months' rent to four months' rent to account for interference with the appellant's access and the improper inclusion of a notice period.