Ross R. Nicholson

The applicant race track sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) decision ordering it to allow the respondent owners' horses to enter races.

The race track had indefinitely banned the horses after another horse trained by the same trainer tested positive for a banned performance-enhancing drug, despite the owners' horses testing negative and the owners having unblemished records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ORC's decision reasonable.

The ORC properly applied the burden of proof, considered relevant evidence, and correctly balanced the race track's private contractual rights against the public interest in fairness and the integrity of horse racing.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that she was an independent contractor rather than an employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's finding.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant was employed by the respondent law firm for 21 years.

She was initially given 18 months' working notice of termination due to the firm's financial difficulties.

Three weeks later, the respondent unilaterally amended the notice, dismissing her immediately with six months' pay in lieu of notice.

The trial judge found the first notice was binding but awarded only 12 months' pay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding there is no functional difference between working notice and pay in lieu of notice, and the employer was bound by the initial reasonable notice of 18 months.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for adverse possession over certain property areas, including a buffer zone.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's acceptance of evidence regarding the area south of Tree Line One was fatal to that part of the claim.

Regarding the western buffer zone, the Court held it was open to the trial judge to find that the appellants' use did not exclude the true owner's proprietary use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.