Jeffrey D. Broadbent

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Belobaba J. dated January 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable to the Foodland plaintiffs.

Multiple motions arising from five civil proceedings related to the Algo Centre Mall collapse sought transfer of a certified class action to Sault Ste.

Marie, trial together or common case management of related actions, and appointment of a single motions judge.

The court held that opt-out plaintiffs in separate proceedings lacked standing under rule 13.1.02 to seek transfer of the class action, and in any event failed to show that Sault Ste.

Marie was a significantly better venue than Toronto in the interest of justice.

The court further declined relief under s. 107(1) of the Courts of Justice Act because any transfer necessary to enable common case management or trial together would impose substantial cost and inefficiency, particularly given the existing class action case management structure.

Appointment of a rule 37.15 judge was also refused.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that dismissed charges of neglect of duty against two police officers.

The officers had investigated a fatal motor vehicle collision involving a pedestrian and declined to demand an approved screening device (ASD) sample from the driver, despite the driver's admission to consuming one or two beers earlier in the evening.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that the driver had alcohol in his body at the time of the accident, as there were no physical indicia of alcohol consumption or impairment.

The Commission concluded that the officers reasonably exercised their discretion under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against four police officers for failing to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the driver's admission of alcohol consumption was a legally compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and could not be used to form reasonable suspicion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found this ruling unreasonable, as there was no evidence the driver subjectively believed he was legally compelled to report the accident.

The Commission revoked the dismissal for the two first-responding officers and remitted the matter for continuation, but confirmed the dismissal for the two later-arriving officers who could not have made a demand 'forthwith'.

The appellant police officer was convicted of two counts of insubordination for failing to attend court and allowing secondary employment to interfere with his duties.

The officer had a scheduling conflict and submitted a leave form, which was approved by his supervisors despite his scheduled court appearance.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services allowed the appeal, finding that the officer held an honest belief that he was excused from attending court, which constituted a lawful excuse.

The convictions were overturned.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction on two counts of insubordination for failing to attend court and violating a condition of secondary employment.

The officer had a scheduling conflict and submitted a leave form, which was approved by his supervisors despite his receipt of a court notice.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the officer had an honest belief that he was excused from attending court, which constituted a lawful excuse.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, as the employer had officially induced the officer's belief by approving the leave.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for insubordination arising from his failure to attend court on a scheduled date.

The officer had a scheduling conflict and submitted a leave form, which was approved by his supervisors despite his receipt of a court notice.

The Commission found that the officer held an honest belief that he was excused from attending court, as his leave was officially approved and he was told by the Crown that he was not needed.

The Commission concluded that the hearing officer erred in finding the officer insubordinate, as his honest mistake provided a lawful excuse.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were overturned.

The appellant employee was terminated due to funding cuts and sued for wrongful dismissal.

The employer argued that the termination provisions in its policy manual limited her entitlement to common-law reasonable notice.

The trial judge found the provisions ambiguous and awarded eight months' notice.

The Divisional Court overturned this decision, finding no breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that the Divisional Court failed to apply the principle from Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd. The termination provisions were not sufficiently clear to rebut the common-law presumption of reasonable notice.