Leah Price

The respondent requested the deferral of a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability during a professional engineering licensing interview.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the licensing process was unlikely to result in conflicting decisions, as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant a professional license.

The respondent Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought a motion to strike factual references from the appellants' facta on appeal and cross-appeal.

The impugned references asserted that the appellant specialized in agricultural engineering.

The respondent argued these assertions were not supported by the evidentiary record from the discipline hearing, as the appellant did not testify.

The court agreed, finding it inappropriate to accept facts beyond the record based merely on the appellant's self-identification in renewal applications.

The motion to strike the references was granted.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the respondent's class action claim, the appellants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, administering the class proceedings fund, argued against a costs award under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, claiming the case involved novel issues and public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the case merely applied existing Supreme Court precedent.

Costs were awarded to the appellants, fixed at $55,000 for the appeal and $125,000 for the action.

The appellants appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects.

They argued they were denied a fair hearing because the independent legal counsel retained to advise the Committee effectively took over the conduct of the hearing.

The Divisional Court agreed, noting numerous instances where the Committee's counsel interrupted the appellants' counsel, purported to speak for the Committee, and engaged in heated arguments.

The findings of guilt were set aside and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant witnessed an alleged unprovoked assault by a police officer and filed a public complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refused to process the complaint, finding the applicant was not 'directly affected' by the conduct.

The Divisional Court overturned this decision, but the Court of Appeal allowed the Commission's appeal, holding that 'directly affected' requires a personal and individual interest, not merely a general interest, and thus a mere witness lacks standing to bring a public complaint.

Following the dismissal of the main appeal, the successful third parties and defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on prior releases and indemnity agreements.

The Court of Appeal found the claimed amounts excessive due to duplication of effort among the multiple respondents.

The Court fixed costs in reduced amounts, awarding a total of $72,000 across the various third parties and the defendant law firm.

The applicants sought to vary management cease trade orders (MCTOs) under section 144 of the Securities Act to permit trading in connection with a proposed going private transaction by Hollinger Inc. The Commission found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that varying the MCTOs would not be prejudicial to the public interest.

The Commission cited concerns regarding the lack of current audited financial statements, the adequacy of the independent valuation, the potential conflicts of interest in the proposed litigation trust, and evidence of undue influence exerted by related parties on the independent committee and valuator.

The applications were denied.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the appeals of an order by Farley J. The Court of Appeal determined that the order in question was interlocutory, as it merely postponed the appellants' entitlement to proceed with their counterclaim in Ontario pending the completion of United States proceedings, rather than finally deciding any issue against them.

Consequently, the appeals were quashed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal from one of its own decisions.

The underlying appeal concerned the Registrar's refusal to register a salesperson under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act due to a youth offence record, a decision which LAT had overturned.

LAT sought to intervene to make submissions on the admissibility of youth records and conditional discharges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that LAT had no interest in the subject matter, would not be adversely affected, and possessed no special expertise on the issues of youth records or conditional discharges.

The Township of Dymond brought an application for judicial review to set aside a municipal restructuring order made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that amalgamated it with two other towns.

The applicant argued that the Minister lacked jurisdiction under the former Municipal Act, breached natural justice by not holding a hearing, and violated the spirit of the legislation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory pre-conditions for the 'double majority' rule were met, rights had accrued before the new Act came into force, and there was no requirement for a hearing before the Minister issued the order.

The respondent, an Ontario insurer, paid statutory accident benefits to Ontario residents injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia.

The respondent sought indemnification from the appellant, a British Columbia insurer, under section 275 of the Ontario Insurance Act.

The appellant argued the Ontario legislation could not constitutionally apply to it.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the superior court, not an arbitrator, should determine the constitutional applicability of the statute.

The Court further held that the Ontario Insurance Act was constitutionally inapplicable to the out-of-province appellant because there was an insufficient connection between Ontario and the appellant to justify the extraterritorial application of the provincial regulatory scheme.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the Registrar under the Business Names Act to cancel the registration of business names containing his surname, registered by the respondent company.

The applicant argued the respondent lacked his written consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that an ongoing civil action between the parties regarding the sale of the applicant's business provided an adequate alternative remedy to determine the contractual right to use the name.

The appellant insurer sought indemnification from the respondent insurer for statutory accident benefits paid to its insured following a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia.

When the respondent disputed the application of the Ontario Insurance Act, the appellant applied to appoint an arbitrator.

The application judge stayed the application, finding that the British Columbia court was the proper forum to decide the choice of law issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Arbitration Act, an arbitrator must make the initial determination of any questions of jurisdiction and applicable law, and the application judge erred by deciding the forum non conveniens issue instead of appointing the arbitrator.

The appellants moved to stay a post-trial order directing that money paid into court by the plaintiff as security for costs be paid out to the respondent's solicitors in trust.

The court held that a successful plaintiff at trial is entitled to the return of money posted as security for costs notwithstanding an appeal and rejected the attempt to preserve the security indirectly pending appeal.

The motion to stay was dismissed with costs.

The respondent's cross-motion to strike a ground in the supplementary notice of appeal was dismissed as moot without costs.