Laurence A. Pattillo

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that denied his claim for a bonus payment following his termination.

The motion judge had found that the appellant had no contractual entitlement to a bonus, as the bonus plan was purely discretionary and subjective.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings, concluding that the employment offer only provided eligibility to participate in the bonus plan, not an entitlement.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's alternative calculation of the bonus quantum or the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought to pursue claims regarding inter vivos transfers made by Caterina Iacobelli, which had been previously dismissed by a summary judgment order in 1997.

Despite subsequent rulings that allowed for further inquiry into these transfers if new evidence emerged from cross-examinations, the plaintiffs failed to present evidence establishing a cause of action based on those cross-examinations.

The court found that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to substantiate their claims but did not do so, leading to the dismissal of their motion to pursue the inter vivos transfer claims.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the successful respondent sought costs of $20,000.

The appellant argued no costs should be awarded as he was a public interest litigant and the appeal raised a novel issue.

The Divisional Court rejected these arguments, noting that private landowners challenging REAs are not public interest litigants and the appeal did not raise a novel issue.

The court fixed costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $10,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court order requiring him to produce his allegedly defective iPhone 5 to the respondent for expert inspection.

The applicant argued the Deputy Judge lacked jurisdiction because the Small Claims Court Rules do not explicitly provide for pre-trial property inspection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that Rule 1.03 permits the court to make orders by analogy to the Rules of Civil Procedure where the Small Claims Court Rules are inadequate.

The court found that ordering a pre-trial inspection was necessary to ensure fairness and a level playing field, given the applicant's intent to rely on expert evidence regarding the device.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision finding that the respondent Ministry did not breach its duty to accommodate an employee terminated for innocent absenteeism.

The employee suffered from a chronic back condition causing unpredictable and excessive absenteeism.

The union argued the duty to accommodate included allowing the employee not to work when unable.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness and upheld the Board's decision, stating the duty to accommodate is intended to allow employees to fulfill their duties, not to completely alter the essence of the employment contract by accepting excessive absenteeism.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting bargaining rights to a competing union.

The applicant argued that a voluntary recognition agreement between the employer and the competing union constituted unlawful employer support under s. 53 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusion that the agreement was a bona fide settlement of an outstanding application, rather than unlawful support, was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration of oppression and the appointment of an inspector under ss. 161 and 248 of the OBCA to investigate the defendants' companies involved in two condominium development projects.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing under s. 161 as they were not beneficial shareholders, and failed to establish a prima facie case of oppression under s. 248.

The court also held that appointing an inspector was inappropriate as the costs would significantly outweigh the benefits, and the plaintiffs already had access to extensive financial information.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent conveyance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to establish there was no genuine issue for trial.

The absence of direct evidence from a key defendant (Weber), whose credibility was central to the claims, prevented a fair determination without a full trial.

The court also noted the risk of inconsistent findings if the fraudulent conveyance claim was dismissed while the related oppression claim proceeded to trial on similar facts.

This costs endorsement follows a judgment declaring Nuspor Investments Partnership as the owner of Toronto Maple Leafs season tickets held by the Estate of Chaim Neuberger.

Nuspor sought substantial indemnity costs, citing settlement offers.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding that the Estate was entitled to have the ownership issue determined and the Estate Trustee acted reasonably in not accepting the offers.

The court further ruled that costs should be paid by the Estate, not personally by one of the Estate Trustees, as the underlying issue was attributable to the testator's lack of clarity regarding asset ownership.

The third party, Mortgage Alliance Company of Canada Inc. (MA), moved for summary judgment to dismiss a third party claim brought by the defendant, Stephen Tzaras.

Stephen Tzaras had fraudulently transferred property and obtained a mortgage, leading to a cross-claim against him for fraud.

Stephen Tzaras then brought a third party claim against MA, alleging that MA's employee aided the fraudster and that MA failed to supervise its employee.

MA argued that Stephen Tzaras's claim was barred by issue estoppel, res judicata, or the defence of ex turpi causa.

The court dismissed MA's motion, finding that issue estoppel and res judicata did not apply as the issues in the cross-claim and third party claim were distinct, and the third parties were not involved in the prior summary judgment motion.

The court also held that ex turpi causa did not prevent a claim for contribution and indemnity from fellow fraudsters, distinguishing it from claims seeking to profit from illegal acts.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay rent arrears, less an abatement for maintenance issues.

The tenant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction due to a defective notice of termination, erred in calculating arrears without viva voce evidence, and wrongly limited his abatement claim to one year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably allowed the landlord to proceed with a claim for arrears only, properly relied on documentary evidence of arrears, and correctly applied the one-year limitation period for maintenance claims.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding costs against him personally, despite him not being a party to the underlying zoning appeal.

The Board had found him to be the 'real litigant' or 'straw man' behind a non-profit corporation's appeal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the questions of whether the Board has statutory jurisdiction to award costs against a non-party and whether it erred in principle in doing so on the facts of this case.

Leave was denied on issues of fair notice and SLAPP legislation.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $16,166.85 plus 24% interest for unpaid medical billing invoices.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding of an implied contractual term requiring the appellants to inquire with the Ministry of Health regarding unpaid invoices, as it was necessary for business efficacy.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding the interest rate, finding that the contractual 24% rate did not apply because there was no finding that the appellants had actually received the funds from the Ministry.

The interest rate was varied to the statutory rates under the Courts of Justice Act.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for a Mareva injunction, the respondents sought their costs.

The court awarded substantial and full indemnity costs to the respondents, totaling over $126,000, finding that the moving parties had made serious, unfounded allegations of fraud and breach of trust, and had engaged in inappropriate conduct by raising unrelated regulatory issues to smear certain respondents.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal confirming the director's issuance of renewable energy approvals for two wind turbine projects.

They argued that section 145.2.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requires a two-step process shifting the onus to the approval-holder, that the tribunal erred in rejecting the material contribution test for causation, and that they were denied procedural fairness when an adjournment was refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statute imposes a single onus on the appellants to prove harm, the material contribution test was properly rejected, and the tribunal reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the adjournment.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that he had no right to unilaterally set off disputed amounts against a court-ordered costs award in a family law proceeding.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that neither the Courts of Justice Act nor equitable principles permit unilateral set-off against a court order.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the motion judge's costs award, reducing it from substantial indemnity to partial indemnity, finding the motion judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's maintained position as an additional factor justifying enhanced costs.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant had not paid any rent since moving in and failed to comply with a Board consent order requiring payment of rent into the Board.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was completely devoid of merit, raised no genuine questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed solely to prolong a rent-free existence.

The motion was granted, the appeal was dismissed, the stay was vacated, and the landlord was awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment granting an order for the immediate partition and sale of a jointly-owned property.

The appellant, who had been critically injured in a hammer attack allegedly perpetrated by the respondent, appealed the order.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to address the evidentiary significance of the appellant's affidavit detailing her severe injuries and lack of alternative housing.

The court held that this silence precluded meaningful appellate review of whether the partition and sale would cause hardship amounting to oppression.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision revoking his registration as a gaming supplier under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The revocation followed the discovery of counterfeit DVDs and unmarked cigarettes at his convenience store, and his subsequent disregard for an immediate suspension order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tribunal's reasons were adequate and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the appellant's pattern of dishonesty and lack of respect for the law.

The appellant chiropractor appealed the liability, penalty, and costs decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario.

The appellant had been found guilty of professional misconduct for sending threatening emails to a colleague who had previously complained about him, and for failing to cooperate with the College's investigation.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct regarding the inappropriate communications and the initial failure to cooperate, but set aside the finding that the appellant failed to cooperate after an investigator was appointed.

The court upheld the penalty, which included a 12-month suspension and a $10,000 fine.

A majority of the court also upheld the costs award of $166,194.50 against the appellant, finding it reasonable given the circumstances of the hearing.