Kurisko

The Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal, which ordered the Registrar to grant a registration with conditions to the respondent.

The issue was whether the Tribunal applied the proper test in determining whether the Registrar's proposal to revoke registration should be carried out.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal correctly identified and applied the test from Brenner v. Ontario, which asks whether past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The court held that it could not interfere with the Tribunal's exercise of discretion unless it was clearly wrong, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Arbitration Board's decision regarding whether the union was entitled to grieve a matter as a union grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's disposition of the issue was not patently unreasonable and reflected a careful analysis of the collective agreement.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had made findings of criminal conduct against him based on undisclosed evidence.

The Board conceded it exceeded its jurisdiction and consented to its decision being quashed.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision and, finding exceptional circumstances including a ten-year delay and lack of clear evidence, refused to remit the matter back to the Board for reconsideration.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a slip and fall action under the simplified procedure, capping his claim at $25,000.

The trial judge assessed damages at $34,933.14 but found the plaintiff 50% contributorily negligent, resulting in an award of $17,466.57.

The defendant appealed, arguing the 50% reduction should have been applied to the $25,000 cap rather than the assessed damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the abandonment of a claim in excess of $25,000 under Rule 76 applies only to the final judgment amount, not the assessed damages.

The Union applied for judicial review of an arbitration board decision that dismissed its grievances concerning contracting out and refused to issue a single employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board did not deny natural justice by refusing further document production, and that its decisions on the single employer issue and the interpretation of the collective agreement were not patently unreasonable.