David Deluzio

The applicant, a former registered practical nurse, sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her benefits for interstitial lung disease.

She claimed the illness was caused by workplace exposure to viruses.

The Tribunal, relying on an independent medical assessor, found it probable that the disease was idiopathic and only speculative that it was caused by workplace viruses.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's reliance on the medical assessor was reasonable and did not constitute an abdication of its decision-making power.

In an addendum regarding costs, the court considered the written submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the principle that costs must be reasonable and fair, the court fixed costs at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders dismissing its motion to decertify a wrongful dismissal class action and varying the process for adjudicating individual claims.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred in finding common issues and a workable plan, and in altering the application of Rule 49.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders and noting that the Class Proceedings Act provides broad discretion to manage individual issues.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to decertify a wrongful dismissal class action and varying the process for adjudicating individual claims.

The class action involved former employees terminated after mass store closures.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred in finding common issues and a workable plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders and noting that the Class Proceedings Act provides adequate mechanisms to handle individual issues.

The plaintiff appealed a Divisional Court decision setting aside a motion judge's order that appointed judges and judicial officers as referees to determine individual class members' claims under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a court cannot appoint a judge or judicial officer to conduct a reference under s. 25(1)(b) of the Class Proceedings Act without first obtaining the authorization of the Chief Justice or her designate under s. 14(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The consent of individual judicial officers is not an adequate substitute for the Chief Justice's overarching responsibility for judicial assignments.