Alex Nikolaev

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which allowed the insured's appeal from an arbitrator's denial of statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for denying income replacement and medical benefits.

Applying the Vavilov framework, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court concluded that the Director's Delegate reasonably found the arbitrator's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address the principal evidence or explain the reasoning process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This appeal concerned the ownership of a cottage and the appellant daughter's liability under two mortgages.

The parents purchased a cottage in 2001, registering title in the daughter's name, with an original mortgage in their favour.

After the father's death, the mother registered a subsequent mortgage.

The mother sought a declaration of true ownership, claiming a resulting trust.

The trial judge found the cottage was a gift to the daughter but also ruled the daughter was liable under the original mortgage, though not the subsequent one.

The Court of Appeal allowed the daughter's appeal, finding the trial judge erred by making a substantive determination on mortgage liability, an issue not squarely pleaded or fully addressed by the parties at trial, thereby denying the daughter a fair opportunity to present her case on that specific issue.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision ordering civil forfeiture of a property located at 855 Darby Road, Welland, and associated Hells Angels Motorcycle Club paraphernalia under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The property was owned by members of the HAMC and used as a clubhouse.

The Crown established that mortgage payments were funded in part by dues paid by HAMC members engaged in drug trafficking, and that the property was used as a meeting place where criminal activity was planned.

The Court of Appeal upheld the forfeiture order, finding the property constituted both proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity, and that the legitimate owner and responsible owner exceptions did not apply.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking disclosure of surveillance particulars from the defendant (TTC) before her examination for discovery.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff's attendance at examination for discovery.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's motion, holding that the defendant, having served its affidavit of documents and notice of examination first, was entitled to examine the plaintiff first.

The defendant was not required to disclose surveillance particulars until its own representatives' examinations for discovery.