Laura M. Wagner

The Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) appealed a motion judge's order finding it in civil contempt of a 2023 consent order and imposing a $30,000 fine.

The consent order prohibited the OAA from issuing licences to architectural technologists based on an internal policy.

The motion judge found the OAA breached the order when its Registration Committee directed the issuance of limited licences under section 25 of the Architects Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt finding, holding that the motion judge failed to establish that the consent order clearly and unambiguously prohibited the statutory exemption process, failed to find intentional disobedience, and failed to properly exercise discretion regarding the appropriateness of a contempt finding.

The plaintiff physician's hospital privileges were suspended and not renewed by the defendant hospital.

After unsuccessfully challenging the revocation through the complete administrative code under the Public Hospitals Act, including appeals to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board and the Divisional Court, the plaintiff commenced a civil action against the hospital and its administrators alleging breach of contract, negligence, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action.

The Superior Court granted the motion, holding that the civil action was an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the same factual matrix and issues already authoritatively decided against the plaintiff in the administrative proceedings.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action against Amazon moved for approval of a third-party funding agreement under section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found the agreement to be fair and reasonable, noting it provided sufficient funding for disbursements and adverse costs without overcompensating the funder.

The court also granted an order designating the plaintiff's lawyers as class counsel and precluding the commencement of similar actions in Ontario without leave of the court.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant real estate developers sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a cost-sharing dispute with an electricity distributor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding the OEB had merely provided an opinion and had not exercised a statutory power of decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the OEB's interpretation of the Distribution System Code to resolve the parties' complaint constituted a final, binding decision under its exclusive statutory jurisdiction.

As such, the decision was of a sufficiently public character to attract public law remedies, including certiorari, and constituted the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court found the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) in contempt of court for circumventing a court order prohibiting it from licensing architectural technologists except as authorized by regulation.

After a prior order voided technologist licences, the OAA issued architect licences to technologists with the same practice restrictions as the banned licences, using a statutory committee process.

The court held this was a breach of both the letter and spirit of the order, as the process was a disguised continuation of the prohibited policy.

The decision reviews the statutory context, the events after the order, and the legal test for contempt, concluding that the OAA intentionally disobeyed the order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by Denver Davis from two orders: one staying a proposed class action against Amazon in favour of arbitration, and the other dismissing the motion for certification of the class action.

The class action alleged Amazon was liable for breach of employment contracts, breach of good faith, unjust enrichment, and negligence, and sought damages on behalf of approximately 73,000 delivery workers.

The court held that the motion judge did not err in finding that Amazon was not a common employer of the delivery associates (DAs) employed by third-party logistics companies, and that the requirements for certification were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondents.

The court considered the allocation and quantum of costs following summary judgment in favour of Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR), where the third party, Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited (CCCL), sought costs from the plaintiff, 863880 Ontario Limited.

The court found that exceptional circumstances justified ordering the plaintiff to pay CCCL’s costs, but not the full amount claimed.

The court directed a revised calculation, holding the plaintiff responsible for half of CCCL’s reasonable costs up to the discontinuance of a related third party claim, and all reasonable costs thereafter, subject to a 20% reduction and further specific deductions.

The applicant, West Whitby Landowners Group Inc., sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that dismissed their judicial review application against the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) and Elexicon Energy Inc. The Divisional Court had found it lacked jurisdiction over the OEB's opinion on cost allocation, deeming it not a statutory power of decision affecting legal rights, and that certiorari was unavailable.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, clarifying the test for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

The court emphasized that the key consideration for granting leave is the impact the decision will have on the development of Ontario's jurisprudence, particularly in administrative and public law, moving away from a rigid checklist approach.

The applicant, West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. (WWLG), brought an application seeking the court to decide a dispute with Elexicon Energy Inc. regarding the classification and funding of a municipal electrical substation.

This followed an opinion from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) siding with Elexicon and the Divisional Court's dismissal of WWLG's judicial review application.

The respondents, Elexicon and the OEB, brought a motion to dismiss WWLG's application.

The court dismissed WWLG's application, finding it constituted an abuse of process as it attempted to relitigate a matter already determined by the OEB, and further, that the OEB had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter concerning compliance with the Distribution System Code.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the hospital's decisions not to renew her reappointment applications and to revoke her privileges due to a long-standing pattern of communication issues and interpersonal conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB did not misapprehend the evidence and appropriately analyzed the criteria for non-renewal and revocation under the hospital's by-laws and the Public Hospitals Act.

In a proposed employment law class action, Amazon successfully resisted certification and obtained a stay for certain claims.

Amazon sought approximately $2.0 million in costs, while the plaintiff, Denver Davis, argued for an award of around $400,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and access to justice in class proceedings, awarded Amazon costs on a partial indemnity basis of $750,000, finding both parties' requested amounts to be unreasonable.

The decision emphasized that costs should reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, not necessarily the successful party's actual costs, and acknowledged the public interest element in the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action sought an extension of time to appeal a stay decision and an order to transfer and combine that appeal with a certification decision appeal, both arising from a single set of reasons by the class action judge.

The class action judge had dismissed certification and stayed claims for some class members due to arbitration agreements.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension and ordered the transfer and combination of appeals, finding strong reasons related to the administration of justice, given the interconnectedness of the underlying decisions and the risk of inconsistent results if heard separately.

In a proposed employment misclassification and common employer class action brought on behalf of delivery workers, the court stayed the claims of workers bound by arbitration agreements and dismissed certification.

Applying the stay framework under the Arbitration Act, 1991 and the unconscionability analysis from the Supreme Court’s arbitration jurisprudence, the court held the arbitration clauses were enforceable and not contrary to public policy.

The court further held that the common employer theory against the retailer in relation to workers hired by numerous third-party logistics companies was legally untenable and unsuitable for certification because the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria were not met.

Although the direct-employer claims of certain drivers might otherwise have supported limited certification, the proceeding was ultimately stayed in part and the certification motion dismissed.

The proposed intervenor brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as an added party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the Ministry of Energy's conclusion that the duty to consult regarding a pipeline replacement project was satisfied.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had a direct interest in the proceeding, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with a parallel appeal.

The appellant, Capital Sports Management Inc., appealed a motion judge's order requiring the production of certain solicitor-client documents to the respondent, Trinity Development Group Inc. The motion judge had found an implied joint retainer of the law firm Gowlings by both parties in relation to a joint venture, and ordered production of documents up to the commencement of the litigation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the implied joint retainer terminated in May 2016 when the parties became materially adverse and threatened litigation against each other.

Furthermore, the respondent had acquiesced to Gowlings continuing to act solely for the appellant after that date.

The appeal was allowed, and the production order was narrowed to exclude documents created after May 2016.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Review and Appeal Board (HPARB) confirming the revocation of her hospital privileges by the respondent hospital.

The revocation was based on a long-standing pattern of unprofessional conduct, inability to collaborate with colleagues, and failure to improve, which jeopardized patient safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB's factual and credibility findings were firmly grounded in the evidence and that it correctly applied the test under the Public Hospitals Act and hospital by-laws.

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP sought leave to intervene as a party in an appeal brought by Capital Sports Management Inc. The underlying appeal challenged an order requiring the production of certain solicitor-client documents based on a finding of an implied joint retainer among Capital Sports, Trinity Development Group Inc., and Gowlings.

Gowlings argued it had a direct interest in the appeal because its conduct and advice were directly impugned.

The court granted Gowlings leave to intervene as a party with limited participation rights, finding that its focused submissions would likely be useful to the court in addressing significant issues about solicitor-client privilege after the breakdown of a relationship involving an implied joint retainer.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order regarding the production of documents.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single issue: whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents after May 2016, having found an implied joint retainer among the parties and their counsel.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The proposed intervener law firm sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring the production of its privileged documents based on an implied joint retainer.

The moving party argued it had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by new grounds of appeal challenging its conduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that intervention on a leave to appeal motion should be rare and extraordinary, and that the proposed intervener's submissions largely duplicated those of the appellant.

The request to intervene in the appeal itself was adjourned pending the outcome of the leave motion.