Lauren Pearce

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing his complaint that the Toronto Police Association breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been terminated following a refusal to sign a last chance agreement related to his alcohol use disorder.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision reasonable, noting the Association had supported the applicant for four years and reasonably concluded the employer's settlement offer was appropriate.

The court also dismissed allegations of bias and human rights violations.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the assessment of a law firm's fees under an unenforceable contingency fee agreement (CFA).

The law firm, Singer Kwinter (SK), appealed the application judge's reduction of their fees and a finding of double-billed disbursements.

Their former client, David Lima, cross-appealed the quantum meruit assessment and sought a greater reduction.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that an unenforceable CFA leads to a quantum meruit assessment, not forfeiture of fees, and reversed the double-billing finding due to procedural unfairness.

On costs, the court balanced SK's responsibility for the assessment due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act against Lima's responsibility for the hearing's length due to rejecting reasonable settlement offers.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Ontario College of Pharmacists Discipline Committee Panel, which had dismissed her motion to stay disciplinary proceedings for abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention, and the applicant would have the opportunity to raise her abuse of process arguments before the Discipline Committee and on any subsequent appeal.

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 applicant, acting as an estate trustee, commenced an application for judicial review without a lawyer.

The Divisional Court adjourned the hearing, holding that under Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party acting in a representative capacity must be represented by a lawyer.

The court ordered the applicant to retain counsel by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.

The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) suspending his licence without a hearing.

The suspension followed criminal charges in Florida for indecent exposure.

The Divisional Court quashed the suspension, finding the ICRC's decision unreasonable because there was no evidence that the applicant's conduct was likely to expose his patients to harm, the ICRC improperly relied on a 1994 complaint, and it failed to provide reasons for rejecting uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence and the applicant's offer of a monitoring term.

The applicants sought leave to appeal and appeal two commercial arbitration awards concerning Cogeco's breach of Wide Area Network (WAN) agreements.

The Arbitrator had applied damages caps and denied specific performance.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the applicants' grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law, not pure questions of law as required by the Arbitration Act.

The court also found the Arbitrator's decisions to be reasonable on the merits, upholding the application of damages caps and the denial of specific performance due to the applicants' failure to demonstrate the absence of a readily available substitute service.