Laurence A. Pattillo

The moving party sought a stay of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario remedial decision pending the outcome of its judicial review application.

The moving party argued that compliance with the remedial orders would divert critical resources away from the COVID-19 pandemic response.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Divisional Court found that the moving party established a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the public interest, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion was granted, and the Tribunal's orders were stayed until 10 days following the release of the judicial review decision.

The appellants appealed a judgment allowing an oppression application that granted the respondents sole authority to conduct a civil action.

The respondents had sold their shares in a company to the appellants but retained the financial benefit and cost obligations of an ongoing lawsuit.

The relationship deteriorated, and the appellants ceased pursuing the lawsuit and withheld information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellants' conduct violated the respondents' reasonable expectations, nor any error in the remedy granting the respondents control of the litigation.

The appellants, the Chief of the Durham Regional Police Service and the Durham Regional Police Services Board, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission had appointed an Administrator to oversee disciplinary proceedings, promotions, and secondary employment within the Service, citing an emergency and a crisis of confidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission had the jurisdiction to make the interim order without notice or a hearing under section 24(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Court held that the decision was reasonable, did not breach procedural fairness, and did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

This case involved consolidated applications concerning a closely held corporation, Fitness Fanatix Inc. The Cornacchia Group sought an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, alleging Cotic mismanaged the business, failed to maintain proper records, and misappropriated cash.

Cotic, in turn, sought to enforce a buy-sell offer under s. 253(1) of the Act and the shareholders' agreement.

The court dismissed the Cornacchia Group's oppression application, finding their expectations were not violated and no misappropriation of cash by Cotic.

The court determined the correct shareholdings and Cotic's shareholder loan balance, rejecting claims that Wilkins and Correia were shareholders.

Cotic's application was allowed in part, granting him the first right to institute a new buy-sell offer based on the court's findings, as the original offer was not enforceable due to adjusted loan amounts and changed circumstances.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that reduced a Master's awards for an extra invoice, prejudgment interest, and costs in a construction lien dispute.

The motion judge had found that the Master made a palpable and overriding error regarding the date of a supplier's invoice, which tainted the Master's overall negative assessment of the respondents' credibility.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the Master's factual error was palpable, it was not overriding, as the credibility findings were supported by numerous other significant factors.

The motion judge erred in law by reassessing credibility and substituting his own findings.

The respondents' cross-appeal for a new trial was dismissed.

The applicant, an internationally trained dentist, sought judicial review of two decisions by the National Dental Examining Board of Canada (NDEB) that resulted in her failing the Assessment of Clinical Skills for the third time.

She challenged the denial of both a compassionate appeal and a regular appeal.

The Divisional Court held that the Executive Committee breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for denying the compassionate appeal, specifically regarding the applicant's mental and emotional state during the exam.

The compassionate appeal decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

However, the court dismissed the judicial review of the regular appeal, finding the Appeals Panel's decision was reasonable, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her Ontario Works benefits due to having assets in excess of the allowable limit.

The Tribunal found that the appellant owned three vehicles, the value of which exceeded the $5,000 limit for a single person.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by equating legal ownership with the definition of an 'asset' under the Act and failing to consider if the vehicles were exempt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal made no error in law as the appellant failed to adduce evidence that the vehicles were inaccessible or exempt under the regulations.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for delay.

The moving party had been found guilty of professional misconduct for knowingly assisting in mortgage fraud, resulting in the revocation of his license to practice law.

The court found the moving party's reasons for delay uncompelling but noted there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The court granted the motion and set aside the Registrar's order on strict terms, requiring the appeal to be perfected within 21 days.

The appellant private school appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding tuition refunds to three international students who transferred to another school shortly after beginning their second year of study.

The trial judge found that the students had entered into new contracts for their second year and were unaware of the school's no-refund policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's conclusion that the refund policy was not part of the contract and that the students were entitled to refunds.

Despite dismissing the appeal, the court awarded $5,000 in costs to the appellant due to the significant time spent trying to serve the respondents, to be set off against the trial judgment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board imposing a $155,000 administrative penalty for contraventions of the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 related to the marketing of energy contracts.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the Board lost jurisdiction because the penalty was imposed outside the two-year limitation period in s. 112.5(2) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the new limitation period issue, finding it would benefit from the specialized tribunal's interpretation and required factual findings.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's arguments that the Board misapprehended evidence and improperly found systemic training deficiencies, concluding there were no errors of law or jurisdiction.

Following the dismissal of Bell Canada's application, Cloudwifi's motion to dismiss/stay, and Cloudwifi's cross-application, both parties sought costs.

Bell sought partial indemnity costs of $122,572.78, and Cloudwifi sought $116,145.76.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

Bell was not entitled to costs as its application was dismissed.

Cloudwifi was denied costs despite its success on the jurisdictional issue because its actions in unlawfully utilizing Bell's equipment amounted to significant misconduct.

The applicant estate sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying survivor benefits following the death of a firefighter from a heart attack.

The Tribunal found that the statutory presumption for firefighters did not apply because the deceased had not attended a 'fire scene' within 24 hours of the heart attack, and that the injury did not otherwise arise out of and in the course of employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decision and its subsequent refusal to reconsider were reasonable and supported by the evidence and applicable policies.

The applicants, Spacebridge Inc. and David Gelerman, sought an order allowing Gelerman to complete his term as a director of Baylin Technologies Inc. and for the release of share certificates held in trust.

Baylin and 2385796 Ontario Inc. brought a cross-application seeking a declaration that Gelerman breached Baylin’s Majority Voting Policy and an order for his resignation.

The court found Baylin’s Majority Voting Policy to be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and in unfair disregard of the applicants' reasonable expectations, as it deviated materially from TSX requirements and was designed to remove Gelerman.

The court also found that Baylin was not entitled to set-off the share certificates against indemnity claims, as the shares had already been "paid" by delivery to the trustee.

The application was allowed, setting aside Baylin's policy and ordering the release of shares, and the cross-application was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an order terminating her tenancy with the respondent landlord.

The termination order was issued after the tenant failed to pay $100 per month towards rent arrears as previously ordered by the Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's disputes regarding the amount of arrears and maintenance issues were not questions of law, and that she could not raise the issue of lack of notice for the first time on appeal.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing he did not know disconnecting his fire alarm was illegal and that he missed the initial hearing because his agent cancelled.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The court noted the tenant failed to raise the knowledge issue before the Board and had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the initial hearing.

The applicant brought a dependant's relief application on behalf of her two minor children against the estate of their deceased father.

The court had to determine whether a pre-retirement surviving spouse pension benefit and a life insurance policy should be included in the net assets of the estate under section 72 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court held that the life insurance policy was included, but the surviving spouse pension benefit was not, as it was payable by virtue of marital status rather than a beneficiary designation.

The court ordered the net estate to be split equally between the deceased's children and his surviving spouse.

Bell Canada brought an application seeking declarations, an injunction, and a mandatory order against Cloudwifi Inc. and Gary Kenning for allegedly wrongful access and use of Bell's telecommunications equipment and breach of a prior settlement agreement.

Cloudwifi responded with a motion to dismiss or stay Bell's application, asserting the CRTC's exclusive jurisdiction, and a cross-application seeking declarations and damages against Bell.

The court dismissed Cloudwifi's motion to stay as moot due to a prior CRTC decision.

It found that the CRTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the regulatory aspects of equipment access, but the court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the alleged breach of the settlement agreement.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Bell's application, finding no breach of the settlement agreement and declining to issue declarations on regulatory matters.

Cloudwifi's cross-application was also dismissed, as it was conditional on the motion's outcome and involved claims better suited for an action.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for a Mareva injunction in a complex commercial fraud action, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to one group of defendants, finding that while a strong prima facie case of fraud was established against them, the injunction was denied on other grounds.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to two other groups of defendants against whom the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud.

The court also addressed costs related to advance funding applications under the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

The applicants, former officers of the respondent corporation, brought applications for advance funding of their legal fees to defend an action alleging complex commercial fraud.

The applications were brought pursuant to the corporation's Unanimous Shareholders Agreement and section 124 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test to determine if advance funding should be denied due to bad faith.

The court dismissed the application of the former CEO, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud had been established against him in a related Mareva injunction motion.

The court granted the application of the former COO, as the evidence did not establish a strong prima facie case of fraud against him.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitration award regarding the calculation of a net profits interest in a mining property.

The respondent argued the arbitration agreement precluded appeals, but the court found no such exclusion.

However, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement involved questions of mixed fact and law, and the applicant failed to identify any extricable errors of law.