Kenneth L. Campbell

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer her complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the Commission was bound by a prior finding of the Board of Referees under the Employment Insurance Act, noting the issues were entirely different.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order requiring the payment of costs forthwith following the granting and continuance of an ex parte injunction against them.

The court granted leave to appeal, noting that recent changes to Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the unique nature of interlocutory injunctions warranted appellate consideration on how discretion should be exercised in awarding costs in such cases.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving with an expired driver's licence.

The insurer terminated his Income Replacement Benefits and Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits.

The plaintiff sued, relying on relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act.

The motion judge dismissed the insurer's summary judgment motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the motion judge's decision, holding that relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act or s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act is not available where an overriding statutory provision precludes coverage.

The action for those benefits was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Board of Directors of the respondent denying its reaccreditation as a member agency.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was correctness.

The court found that the respondent followed its own procedures fairly, and there was ample evidence to support the denial of reaccreditation due to the appellant's non-compliance with accreditation standards.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant condominium corporations appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision disallowing their warranty claims against the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

The appellants argued that under s. 13(6) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, statutory warranties continue in force despite any agreement to the contrary, rendering their previously executed releases with the builder unenforceable.

The Divisional Court distinguished prior case law, noting the releases were executed by sophisticated parties with legal advice to settle a known, properly filed warranty claim.

The Court held that the Act encourages settlements and does not bar parties from settling claims in exchange for a release.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which upheld the cancellation of their tobacco production quota for alleged illegal sales.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions of both the Board and the Tribunal, finding that the Tribunal failed to apply the required standard of clear and convincing proof for quasi-criminal allegations and relied on insufficient evidence.

The Court also found a reasonable apprehension of bias because an adjudicator from the initial Board hearing testified as a prosecution witness before the Tribunal.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judgment that awarded damages and punitive damages to the defendant arising from a commercial lease of truck trailers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the plaintiff breached its maintenance obligations.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the lease regarding early return of trailers and affirmed the punitive damages award, noting that specific damages need not be proven for a breach of contract to support punitive damages.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The tenant appealed an eviction order, arguing the adjudicator erred in finding the landlord required possession of the premises in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue of good faith is a question of fact, and appeals to the Divisional Court under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 are restricted to questions of law.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, arguing it was entitled to notice of the arbitration because the decision affected its attempts to unionize security guards in the film industry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was only indirectly affected by the arbitration and therefore not entitled to notice.

Furthermore, the court held it was inappropriate to proceed with judicial review while parallel proceedings regarding the same issues were pending before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The defendant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the plaintiff damages for breach of a verbal contract for car repairs.

The trial judge found that the defendant failed to warn the plaintiff that performance enhancements to the top of the engine risked damaging the bottom part, which ultimately caused the engine to fail.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion and deferring to his findings of fact.

No costs were awarded as both parties were self-represented.

Following the dismissal of the respondent husband's motion for leave to appeal, the petitioner wife sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the costs at $3,750, inclusive of disbursements and GST, noting that preparation time for a leave motion should bear a reasonable relationship to the counsel fee for the motion itself.

The husband brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim order for child and spousal support, arguing the order left him with less than 26% of joint family income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's decision.

The court noted that interim orders are intended to be temporary and that a motion to vary based on changed circumstances or proceeding to an early trial are preferable routes to seeking leave to appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing an employee's discharge grievance.

The employee was terminated following a workplace altercation where he verbally and physically confronted a more senior employee.

The applicant argued the arbitrator breached natural justice, made findings without evidence, and improperly failed to substitute a lesser penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of fairness, sufficient evidence to support the arbitrator's findings, and no improper considerations in the penalty assessment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the Director's denial of his application for income support as a disabled person under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding and misapprehending medical evidence, specifically by discounting reports from one family physician in favour of another.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal carefully reviewed the medical evidence, noted discrepancies with the appellant's testimony, and made no palpable or overriding error of fact.

At the commencement of a judicial review application, the applicant raised a preliminary objection without notice, arguing the Information and Privacy Commissioner should not be permitted to address the correctness of its own decision.

The Divisional Court adjourned the application, ordering that the preliminary objection be properly briefed with facta and that an amicus curiae be appointed to assist the court on the substantive issues in the event the Commissioner is denied standing to argue the correctness of the decision.

The appellants appealed an order declaring their construction lien invalid and vacating its registration.

The motion judge had invalidated the lien because the Affidavit of Verification lacked a completed jurat, despite subsequent evidence confirming it was properly sworn before a commissioner.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, distinguishing between the affidavit itself and the jurat, which merely provides evidentiary proof.

The Court held that subsequent proof of the proper completion of the affidavit is acceptable, and the lien remains valid.