Lee K. Ferrier

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee placed on administrative leave without pay due to bail restrictions following an arrest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied established arbitral jurisprudence requiring employers to attempt to identify an appropriate temporary position for employees precluded from performing normal duties due to pending criminal charges.

The court rejected the employer's argument that this principle was inapplicable because its actions were in response to bail restrictions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had concluded that the applicant's employment was terminated for willful disobedience, which disentitled him to termination pay under O. Reg. 288/01 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university senate appeals committee decision denying him a specialized accounting degree.

The dispute centered on whether a specific strategic management course could be included in calculating his grade point average for the specialization.

The Divisional Court held that the committee's decision on an academic matter was subject to a reasonableness standard of review and found the decision to exclude the course was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following an appeal, the successful self-represented appellant sought costs for disbursements, including transcripts and copying exhibits.

The respondent failed to file costs submissions.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $2,500 all-inclusive, payable upon the settlement of all claims or the conclusion of the trial.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission that reinstated the original results of a horse race, overturning a prior decision by the track Stewards regarding interference.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness due to lack of notice, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and challenged the tribunal's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that actual notice was established, there was no evidence of bias, and the tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders that adjourned her motion to discontinue a civil action sine die pending a jurisdictional determination by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

The Divisional Court heard the motion for leave and found that the appellant failed to satisfy the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

There was no conflicting decision on a legal principle, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the procedural order, which did not raise an issue of importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action sought to compel the defendant to disclose information contained in a written statement the defendant had provided to his insurer.

The master refused the request, but the motion judge ordered the defendant to answer.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court held that the information was protected by litigation privilege.

The court found that the plaintiff had alternative means to obtain the relevant facts by questioning the defendant directly during discovery.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the question was improper as it was directed solely to the defendant's credibility.

The appeal was allowed and the master's decision restored.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the revocation of his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant demonstrated willful blindness regarding stolen vehicles found on his lot and noted several Highway Traffic Act convictions indicating a lack of honesty and integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's credibility findings or its reliance on the appellant's past conduct.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a costs order following the consent dismissal of a long-standing action.

The motions judge had initially awarded costs to the moving party but, after receiving submissions on quantum, ordered no costs payable by either party.

The moving party argued a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion, as the costs claimed were $125,000, exceeding the $50,000 limit for Divisional Court jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion was adjourned to the Court of Appeal.

The City of St. Catharines sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the release of a report considered during an in camera municipal council meeting.

The report concerned a property owner's request to acquire city land or obtain an encroachment agreement.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness for the Commissioner's interpretation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but correctness for the Municipal Act.

Although the Adjudicator erred in finding the meeting was improperly closed under the Municipal Act, the ultimate decision to release most of the report was reasonable because the report did not reveal the actual substance of the in camera deliberations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order quashing Notices of Garnishment for alleged child support arrears.

The respondent disputed the arrears, claiming he had overpaid, and a default hearing was pending in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision to quash the garnishment pending the determination of the actual arrears.

The appellant insurance company appealed a decision dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent homeowners.

The respondents had sued for damages following unsatisfactory home repairs after a flood.

The appellant failed to file a statement of defence despite multiple extensions, and delayed several months before moving to set aside the default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that while the motions judge erred in concluding there was no arguable defence on the merits, she correctly found the appellant failed to explain the default or move promptly.

Weighing all factors, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal, finding the justice of the case required denying relief due to the appellant's unexplained delay.

The employer school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been discharged for inappropriate behaviour towards a female colleague.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the award, finding that the arbitrator made several fundamental errors.

Specifically, the arbitrator failed to make critical findings of fact regarding the allegations, improperly applied a subjective test for harassment that required intent, and failed to ask whether the proven inappropriate conduct constituted just cause for discipline even if it did not amount to harassment.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and ordering him to pay arrears, as well as a subsequent review order confirming the termination.

The tenant argued he was denied natural justice because he did not receive notice of the final hearing and therefore did not attend.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and upholding the Board's factual finding that the tenant had received notice of the hearing.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP imposing an administrative charge of $81,450 for 543 unauthorized payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the General Manager had no duty to refer the administrative charge issue to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, as the Board's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing unauthorized payments.

The Court confirmed the General Manager's authority to impose a $150 administrative charge for each unauthorized payment under the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004.

Furthermore, the Court noted it would have declined to grant the discretionary remedy of judicial review due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that partially denied her claim for compensation following the shooting death of her son.

The Board had denied her claim for mental or nervous shock and reduced her award for funeral expenses because the victim's behaviour contributed to his death.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of the legal test for mental or nervous shock or its reduction of funeral expenses under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The applicant purchased property for a retail store and sought access from a provincial highway.

The Ministry of Transportation denied the request for safety reasons, citing a policy preferring municipal road access when available.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the Ministry unlawfully fettered its discretion by strictly applying the policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Ministry had genuinely considered alternatives and expert evidence before reasonably concluding no safe highway access could be provided.

The appellant, a lawyer appealing a professional discipline decision, requested an adjournment of his appeal hearing one week before the scheduled date in order to retain counsel.

The court noted the request was almost devoid of merit given the appellant's prior delays and failure to perfect the appeal on time.

However, recognizing this was the appellant's last chance to restore his professional life and finding no risk to the public, the court granted a final indulgence.

The appeal was adjourned peremptorily, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs of $1,500 to the respondent.

The applicants sought an order quashing and permanently prohibiting a disciplinary proceeding against them before the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's administrative staff had inappropriately interfered in the scheduling process, demanded evidence for adjournments, and usurped the role of the Chair.

The Chair was found complicit in this conduct and interfered with the independence of a panel member who had ruled against the staff's request to be added as a party.

The court concluded that a reasonable apprehension of bias was established and permanently stayed the disciplinary proceedings.

The appellant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his real estate broker registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant made false statements and his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity.

The Divisional Court found these findings reasonable but held the Tribunal's failure to address whether the renewal could be granted subject to conditions rendered the decision unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a rehearing.