Laurence A. Pattillo

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of J. Wilson J. dated August 5, 2020.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable to the responding insurance company.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,349.23.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario regulation that discontinued the reimbursement of out-of-country medical expenses under the provincial health insurance plan.

The Divisional Court found that the regulation clearly violated the portability criterion of the Canada Health Act, which would disqualify Ontario from receiving a full federal cash contribution.

Because the Health Insurance Act explicitly prohibits the Lieutenant Governor in Council from making regulations that would cause such disqualification, the impugned regulation was declared ultra vires.

The applicants' Charter challenges under sections 7 and 15 were dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order termination and severance pay against a related company and corporate directors following the employer's bankruptcy.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The Court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that he lacked jurisdiction to make orders against entities and individuals who were not parties to the collective agreement, noting that the related company was not a party and the Business Corporations Act requires a civil action to hold directors liable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenants' application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The tenants had a history of failing to pay rent, breaching a consent order, and commencing multiple proceedings to delay eviction without appearing at hearings.

The court found the application was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to judicially review an order of a Superior Court Judge or the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were ordered.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The employer applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision which found that the employer's unilateral implementation of an electronic Grievance Management System (GMS) violated the collective agreement.

The collective agreement specified a process for filing grievances in writing to a designated officer.

The employer mandated that all grievances be filed through its proprietary GMS.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the GMS imposed mandatory conditions beyond those negotiated in the collective agreement, and thus was not a valid exercise of management rights.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order placing their two children in the extended care of the Children's Aid Society for adoption with no access.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in two respects.

First, the motion judge improperly relied on inadmissible double hearsay evidence to conclude the parents were drug impaired.

Second, the motion judge applied the outdated legal test for access by presuming against access and placing the onus on the parents, failing to apply the new best interests test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The matter was remitted for trial.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding parties.

The moving party, The Russian Federation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Penny J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $7,500 payable in the discretion of the panel deciding the appeal.

The parties were directed to schedule the delivery of appeal materials and a case management teleconference.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a co-owned rental property pursuant to the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by refusing an adjournment, disregarding his right of first refusal under a co-ownership agreement, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the majority of the appeal, finding no error in the refusal of the adjournment and concluding the right of first refusal did not apply because the parties had already agreed to sell the property.

The appeal was allowed only to correct a minor error in the order regarding the holding of net proceeds in trust.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two interlocutory arbitration decisions concerning the termination of an employee.

The respondent hospital argued the applications were premature because the arbitration process was not yet complete.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances justified judicial intervention before the arbitrator had issued a final decision on the merits.

The applications for judicial review were dismissed as premature.

This costs endorsement followed previous judgments in consolidated applications concerning a shareholder dispute.

The court had dismissed the Cornacchia Group’s application and allowed, in part, Michael Cotic’s application, making Cotic the overall successful party.

Cotic sought substantial indemnity costs, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs under Rule 49.

The Cornacchia Group argued for apportioned costs or no reimbursement for disbursements.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity, finding that allegations of fraud arose from Cotic's sloppy record-keeping rather than deliberate misconduct, and that Cotic's Rule 49 offer was not more favourable than the judgment obtained.

The court also found the Cornacchia Group's actions did not unnecessarily prolong proceedings.

Cotic was awarded partial indemnity costs, assessed at $380,000, payable forthwith, jointly and severally by the Cornacchia Group, with a right of set-off against the purchase price of their interests in the Corporation.

The Ministry of Health applied for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that the Ministry engaged in systemic gender discrimination in setting compensation for midwives.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry had abandoned historical compensation principles that aligned midwives with community health centre physicians, leading to an inequitable compensation gap.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's findings of adverse treatment and the connection to sex were reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's remedial orders, which included a 20% retroactive compensation increase and $7,500 per eligible midwife for injury to dignity.

Following a judgment determining the status of shareholder loans, the parties sought guidance on four specific accounting items.

The court held that franchise fees paid by the applicants were a corporate expense and should be credited to their shareholder loans.

However, claims for reimbursement of merchandise expenses, unpaid monthly amounts to one shareholder, and a balance on a loan from a shareholder's mother were dismissed due to lack of authority, insufficient evidence, and failure to plead the claims.

Following a trial where the plaintiff law firm successfully obtained a permanent injunction preventing the defendant from disseminating defamatory allegations, the court addressed the continuation of a sealing order and costs.

The court held that the sealing order over the general court record must continue to protect a third party, but lifted the sealing order over the reasons for judgment, finding no serious risk to the plaintiff given their complete vindication.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $1,217,365.68 due to the defendant's reprehensible conduct in making unproven allegations of criminal fraud and dishonesty with malice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a notice from the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) requiring it to register as a travel agent or face potential charges under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application at the outset of the hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The court held that TICO's notice was not an exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, as TICO only has the power to seek an injunction or initiate a prosecution, not to unilaterally decide the applicant's legal rights.

This action arose from a dispute between two individuals, Bateni and Jamali, concerning the acquisition and ownership of a Chrysler Canada car dealership.

Bateni claimed damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, diversion of corporate opportunities, oppression under the Business Corporations Act, and wrongful dismissal.

The court found that an oral agreement existed between Bateni and Jamali for Bateni to acquire a 20% ownership interest in a new dealership (Caledon Hills) through "sweat equity" and serve as general manager.

Jamali breached this agreement by causing the initial dealership application (Caledon Hills LOI) to be rescinded due to an ownership dispute with a third partner (Totonchian), and then unilaterally applying for the dealership under a new entity (Caledon Chrysler) without Bateni.

The court also found Jamali's actions to be oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to Bateni's interests.

Furthermore, Bateni was found to have been wrongfully dismissed from Caledon Chrysler.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a 12-month licence suspension and related conditions imposed by the Discipline Committee for professional misconduct, including false advertising and failing to follow client instructions.

The College cross-appealed the Committee's decision to allow the appellant to own a mobile veterinary practice post-suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding the penalty was supported by evidence, adequately reasoned, and not disproportionately harsh given the appellant's prior disciplinary record.

The court also found no error in the Committee's distinction between clinics and mobile services for the ownership restriction.