Laurence A. Pattillo

The appellant sold her condominium to the respondent but failed to vacate the premises on closing.

After obtaining a writ of possession, the respondent had the appellant's personal property moved to storage and subsequently disposed of it to a junk dealer.

The appellant brought a claim for conversion, which the trial judge dismissed on the basis that the appellant had abandoned her goods and failed to prove their value with expert evidence.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in finding abandonment, as the appellant had communicated her desire for the return of her goods and the factors for abandonment were not met.

The court also held the trial judge erred in failing to assess damages despite the lack of expert evidence, as a substantial loss was demonstrated.

The appeal was allowed and damages for conversion were assessed at $25,000, less moving and storage costs.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for partial summary judgment regarding a share option claim.

The motion judge had granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the claim, applying Quebec law to find the defendant breached its duty of good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which was based on factual findings and expert evidence on Quebec law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that summarily dismissed her complaint against her union for failing in its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had previously settled a grievance regarding her termination, but subsequently complained about the union's representation.

The Divisional Court held that the Board was entitled to dismiss the complaint summarily without a hearing, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The underlying action is a proposed class action regarding a birth control device, and the affidavit was filed in response to the defendants' motion to stay the Ontario proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the issues regarding the refusals were specific to the stay motion and did not transcend the interests of the parties to involve matters of general or public importance.

The appellant retained the respondent law firm for his divorce litigation and failed to pay his legal accounts.

The respondent obtained a writ of seizure and sale under the Creditors' Relief Act for the unpaid trial debt.

The appellant appealed, arguing the respondent required leave under the Solicitors Act to proceed and that the accounts should be assessed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that leave was not required because no assessment of the trial debt had been requested, and the motion judge reasonably exercised his discretion in refusing to order an assessment due to the appellant's undue delay.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they committed securities fraud and misrepresentation by selling nearly $19 million in securities without disclosing a highly critical financial report.

The Commission ordered significant administrative penalties and disgorgement of over $16.5 million.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the Commission's findings, concluding that the failure to disclose the report while continuing to sell securities was objectively dishonest.

The Court also affirmed that reliance is not required for a misrepresentation finding under the Securities Act and that the Commission has broad public interest jurisdiction to order disgorgement of all funds raised through non-compliance, even if not personally retained by the wrongdoers.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a competing union to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent construction company.

The Board had determined that the applicant's existing collective agreement did not cover carpenters and carpenters' apprentices, effectively ending the applicant's intervention in the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and correct based on the plain meaning of the agreement's recognition and jurisdiction clauses.

Commercial List trial arising from the wrongful termination of a subcontract in a large SAP IS-U implementation project.

The court held that the prime contractor wrongfully terminated the subcontract for cause, because alleged deficiencies in data conversion, reconciliation, and AMS did not amount to material incurable breaches and, in any event, earlier breaches had been affirmed.

The court further held that delay to Go-Live was multi-causal and could not be attributed solely to the subcontractor, with project management failures by the prime contractor bearing overall responsibility.

Lost profits for the AMS portion were recoverable because the limitation clause did not exclude direct expectation damages under the subcontract.

The plaintiff recovered substantial damages, while the defendant succeeded only in part on a limited counterclaim for specific breaches, unpaid invoices, and a contractual late-delivery penalty.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a temporary order granting the respondent carriage of the sale of the former matrimonial home.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the interim agreement, ordering staging costs, and demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias by commenting on her history of changing counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions, no issues of general importance, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The court held that the motion judge's comments reflected the applicant's documented history of delay and did not amount to judicial bias.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his $25,000 claim for damages arising from a condominium water leak.

At trial, the appellant attempted to introduce a new expert report on mould on the final day of trial, which the trial judge refused to admit due to late notice and unfairness to the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's discretionary decision to exclude the late evidence under Rule 18.02(1) was not clearly wrong and did not amount to an injustice.

Furthermore, the trial judge correctly found that the appellant had sued the wrong parties.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the applicable pre-judgment interest rate and the quantum of costs following a settlement in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The Divisional Court held that the legislative amendment reducing the pre-judgment interest rate was substantive and did not apply retroactively.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's decision to award the plaintiff unrecovered costs from a statutory accident benefit arbitration, finding that the recovery of those benefits constituted a benefit to the defendants in the tort action.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Three mothers sought judicial review of decisions made by the Motherisk Commission regarding their child protection cases.

The court first ruled that the mandatory publication ban under s. 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act prevented the media from publishing the mothers' names, even with their consent.

The court then dismissed one application as moot because the applicant had already received a favourable ruling from the Commissioner.

The remaining two applications were dismissed as premature because the applicants had not yet exhausted the internal reconsideration processes available before the Commission.

The applicant estate trustee sought to recover the estate's interest in a townhouse co-owned by the deceased and the respondent.

The respondent claimed the property by right of survivorship, arguing the joint tenancy was never severed, and brought a cross-application for unjust enrichment regarding beneficiary designations.

The court found that the joint tenancy had been severed by mutual agreement prior to the deceased's death, making them tenants in common.

The respondent's cross-application for unjust enrichment and constructive trust was dismissed, as was the estate's motion for contempt regarding the respondent's delay in signing closing documents.

The Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario brought an application for judicial review of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's response to the Sixth Justices of the Peace Remuneration Commission's report.

The Association challenged the government's rejection of salary and WASH Court day recommendations, and its unilateral implementation of benefit changes.

The Divisional Court held that the government provided a rational basis for rejecting the salary and WASH Court recommendations.

However, the court found the unilateral implementation of benefit changes without independent commission consideration to be unconstitutional, quashing that part of the response and prohibiting implementation until a commission reports on the issue.

A motion by the government to set aside an interlocutory stay order was dismissed.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the 'cost of transportation' for medical travel by private vehicle under O. Reg. 222/98 was limited to operating costs and excluded ownership costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation unreasonable.

The Court held that the plain meaning, context, and purpose of the legislation did not support excluding ownership costs from the calculation of the medical transportation benefit, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for redetermination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision dismissing a grievance that sought to hold the employer vicariously liable for a fellow employee's tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The fellow employee had used the employer's equipment to access the grievor's Employment Insurance records.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness.

Applying the principles from Bazley v Curry, the court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the wrongful act was not sufficiently related to conduct authorized by the employer to be reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his Charter application for delay.

The application challenged the Toronto Police Service's practice of 'carding' or 'street checks'.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that counsel being too busy is not a sufficient excuse.

The court also found a lack of bona fide intention to meet the time limits and presumed prejudice to the respondents.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought to review an interlocutory order of the Small Claims Court regarding amendments to pleadings and an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the Registrar correctly dismissed the application because no record was required for an interlocutory proceeding, and the applicant failed to perfect it in time.

Furthermore, the court noted the application lacked merit as judicial review of interlocutory Small Claims Court orders is restricted to jurisdictional issues, which were not present here.

The appellant law firm appealed an order of a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge who dismissed the appellant's claim for unpaid legal fees, vacated a writ of seizure and sale, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant had previously obtained default judgment against the respondent.

The respondent moved to set aside the default judgment, but the Deputy Judge instead struck the claim based on the Solicitors Act and the Limitations Act.

The Divisional Court held that the Deputy Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the claim while the default judgment stood, effectively acting as an appellate court over a fellow judge.

Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in moving to set aside the default judgment.

The appeal was allowed, and the Deputy Judge's order was set aside.

The appellant contractor appealed the dismissal of its construction lien and quantum meruit claims against the respondent landowner.

The trial judge found the respondent was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because it did not request the work, which was performed under a separate contract with a third-party purchaser.

The Divisional Court upheld this finding, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error.

The Court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that while the trial judge erred in requiring the respondent to have caused the deprivation, the claim still failed because the appellant's contract with the third party constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.