Lee K. Ferrier

The appellant, an inmate, appealed the dismissal of his action for malicious prosecution and Charter damages against a police officer and the Crown.

The appellant had been charged with assault causing bodily harm following a prison fight, but the charge was later withdrawn.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charge and did not act with malice.

The court also confirmed that mala fides is required to establish a breach of section 7 of the Charter in this context, and that the appellant sued the wrong level of government for his transfer to a maximum-security facility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board approving a settlement between a rival union and the employers.

The settlement declared two drugstore chains to be related employers and granted the rival union sole bargaining rights for all employees of the non-unionized chain in Ontario, including the Ottawa region where the applicant traditionally represented employees of the unionized chain.

The applicant was not given notice of the settlement or the underlying applications.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by unreasonably requiring the applicant to already represent employees of the non-unionized chain to be entitled to notice.

The Court held that the applicant was significantly affected by the decision and had a right to intervene.

The applicant physician brought an appeal and an application for judicial review challenging an interlocutory decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had ruled it had jurisdiction to hear allegations regarding patients not specifically named in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for judicial review for prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances to intervene in the ongoing disciplinary process, as the Committee reasonably concluded it had jurisdiction.

The Court also quashed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Health Professions Procedural Code to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order imposing conditions on access to audio tapes and a two-week notice period for further motions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that the condition regarding access to the tapes had already been complied with and the notice period was a procedural matter within the motions judge's discretion.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision and an Appeal Panel's interlocutory decision refusing a stay.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that the applicant must exhaust his internal remedies before the Law Society Appeal Panel before seeking review by the Court.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff appealed a decision upholding a Master's refusal to strike an affidavit.

During cross-examination on the affidavit, the witness's counsel adjourned the examination so the witness could consult with another lawyer.

When cross-examination resumed, the witness refused to answer questions about the consultation, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Divisional Court held that the Master erred by placing the onus on the plaintiff to prove interference with the witness's evidence without requiring the defendants to elect whether to waive privilege or withdraw the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the decisions below set aside, and the matter remitted to the Master.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee revoking his teaching certificate due to incapacity.

The Committee relied on a provisional psychiatric diagnosis of delusional disorder based on a document review, as the appellant refused to attend a psychiatric assessment or the final days of his hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was admissible and the Committee's decision was reasonable.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant waived his right to complain by choosing not to attend the hearing.

The applicants brought a joint motion on consent for an order allowing their application for judicial review of several decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, quashed the Tribunal's decisions, and ordered that the matter be adjudicated in a hearing de novo before a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal.

The appellant Township appealed a decision setting aside a master's order that required the respondent to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

The master's order was based on admissions made by the respondent in response to a request to admit regarding the existence of documents proving damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that using a request to admit to force a party to state whether it has documents evidencing damages is improper and a nullity.

Consequently, the respondent's admissions were also a nullity, and the appeal judge did not err in setting aside the master's order.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel affirming his disbarment for professional misconduct.

The Hearing Panel found he knowingly participated in a dishonest scheme to obtain mortgage funds by being reckless and willfully blind to fraudulent real estate transactions.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found no error in the panels' conclusions regarding misconduct or the penalty of disbarment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Attorney General applied for forfeiture of $5,545 seized during a drug investigation under the Civil Remedies Act.

The respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the supporting affidavit that referred to his criminal record and past drug-related activity, arguing it was inadmissible propensity evidence.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The respondent appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that similar fact evidence of bad character is admissible in civil forfeiture proceedings where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, as it is relevant to whether the seized money is proceeds of unlawful activity.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of records containing homeowners' addresses and environmental test results.

The Divisional Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

The court found that the information arguably constituted 'personal information' and that procedural fairness, as well as potentially section 28 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, required that the affected homeowners be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before their information could be disclosed.

The appellant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and sexual abuse suffered at a training school as a youth.

The Board denied compensation, taking into account the appellant's subsequent criminal behaviour, including a conviction for rape.

The appellant appealed, arguing that subsequent conduct should not be considered under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's broad discretion to consider 'all relevant circumstances' includes the claimant's subsequent criminal conduct.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for making false statements to his disability insurers regarding his capacity to work.

The Committee had suspended his certificate of registration for six months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's conclusions were reasonable, supported by ample evidence, and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonableness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievance regarding her layoff and dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence, and did not involve a denial of procedural fairness.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision upholding an Assessment Officer's assessment of legal fees.

The Assessment Officer discounted the time of two senior lawyers because their dockets were not served in compliance with the Evidence Act and the lawyers did not attend the hearing, depriving the client of the opportunity to cross-examine them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Assessment Officer's decision or the reviewing judge's consideration.

The appellant objected to the involvement of the respondent's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest, and sought to have counsel removed.

The Divisional Court declined to make the order, noting that the objection was raised late, the lower court had already found no conflict, the quantum in issue was very small, and requiring the respondent to retain new counsel would cause undue delay and expense.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the contracting out of a 'locating function' previously performed by an Inspector.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the locating function constituted 'work' under the collective agreement.

The court held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's remedy was reasonableness.

The arbitrator's decision to award damages as an incentive for compliance, calculated based on the value of the work, was deemed reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Liquor License Board finding violations of the Liquor License Act for permitting drunkenness and allowing alcohol to be removed from the premises, as well as the resulting 10-day license suspension and added conditions.

The appellant argued denial of natural justice due to delayed disclosure, improper limits on cross-examination, and the Board's treatment of an inspector's evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of natural justice as the appellant had immediate notice of the infractions, and holding that the Board properly assessed the inspector's observational evidence.

The global sanction was also upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Kingston Area Taxi Commission revoking his taxi licenses.

The Divisional Court found that the applicant was denied procedural fairness because he received only 6 days' notice instead of the required 14 days, and the Commission continued the hearing on a later date without notifying him or his representative.

The court set aside the Commission's decision and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.