Lee K. Ferrier

The appellant appealed an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that quashed her appeal from a Small Claims Court decision and ordered her to pay security for costs.

The underlying dispute involved losses sustained on an online poker website operated by the respondent, which was governed by an end user licence agreement containing an exclusive forum selection clause for the Isle of Man.

The Divisional Court panel found no palpable and overriding error in the single judge's conclusions that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and that security for costs was warranted.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding he gave a bad faith notice of termination for landlord's own use and ordering him to pay compensation to the respondent tenants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board Member denied procedural fairness by refusing to permit the appellant to call witnesses regarding his reasons for termination and by allowing the respondents to file evidence after the hearing concluded.

The matter was returned to the Board for a new hearing.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought leave to appeal a temporary order that granted care and custody of five children to the respondent mother, subject to conditions granting the Society access to health care and education information.

The Society argued the order improperly divided custody.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the conditions were reasonable and authorized by the Child and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the court held the proposed appeal did not involve matters of public importance.

The appellant, a bank employee, sought to certify a class action against the respondent bank for systemic unpaid overtime.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding no common issues that would advance the litigation and that the bank's overtime policy requiring pre-approval was lawful under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge also awarded $525,000 in costs to the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims required individual assessments and that the costs award was reasonable.

The applicants sought an injunction to prevent the closure of the only public secondary school in Niagara-on-the-Lake, pending an application for judicial review of the school board's decision.

The court dismissed the motion primarily due to the applicants' two-year delay in bringing the proceeding.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found no strong prima facie case, as the board's administrative decision was procedurally fair and reasonable.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience heavily favoured the board, which had already completed complex logistical arrangements to relocate students and staff.

The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal two case management orders made in a guardianship application that had been ongoing for 2.5 years.

The applicant argued the case management judge lacked inherent jurisdiction to case manage an estate matter.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the court has inherent jurisdiction to control its own process and that the tests for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) were not met.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants failed to order a transcript or perfect the appeal, and provided no explanation for the delay.

The court quashed the appeal for failure to perfect and also found it devoid of merit, noting that applying the Small Claims Court monetary cap to the payment of outstanding rent arrears to void an eviction order under section 74(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act would result in an absurdity.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her libel action against the respondents regarding an allegedly defamatory article published in a newspaper.

The trial judge had dismissed the action, finding the statements were substantially true and constituted fair comment, largely based on an adverse credibility finding against the appellant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for his credibility findings and failed to analyze conflicting or corroborating evidence, rendering the reasons insufficient for proper appellate review.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision declaring that properties leased by the Crown to non-profit Harbour Authorities for nominal rent were exempt from property taxation.

MPAC argued the Harbour Authorities paid valuable consideration through services and maintenance obligations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the services did not constitute a profit to the Crown.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Harbour Authorities shared an identity of patrimony with the Crown, entitling them to the same tax exemption.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to strike the statement of defence of the defendant corporation.

The plaintiff argued that because the corporation was dissolved, it was a non-entity and could not file a defence.

The Divisional Court agreed with the motion judge that it is implicit in the Business Corporations Act that a dissolved corporation permitted to be sued must also be permitted to defend itself.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with the court also noting the motion was moot as the corporation had since been revived.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct for refusing to attend an interview with a Society investigator.

The appellant argued that the Law Society Act only authorized the Society to require the provision of information, not attendance at an oral interview.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Society's broad duty to protect the public interest required effective investigation powers, including the authority to compel oral interviews.

The applicant, a chartered accountant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario's Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with an investigation.

The investigation stemmed from a complaint that the applicant helped a client conceal income in a matrimonial dispute.

The applicant argued that the investigating committee breached its duty of fairness by expanding the investigation without notice and breached its disclosure obligations by not providing the preliminary investigative report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the investigation had expanded and holding that there was no obligation to disclose the preliminary report during an ongoing investigation.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judge's decision to deduct Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) from a jury award for past income loss, which reduced the award to zero, and the subsequent costs order against him.

The Divisional Court upheld the IRB deduction, finding no evidence the jury had already accounted for it.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge breached natural justice by deciding the defendants' entitlement to costs without hearing submissions from the plaintiff.

The costs issue was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which dismissed their claims against Tarion Warranty Corporation for alleged defects in their new home, including foundation issues, basement moisture, and squeaky floors.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's findings of fact.

The Court found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded, based on the evidence of civil engineers and construction managers, that the home was built in accordance with the design and not too close to the water table.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed a union grievance regarding balance and deposit time for collectors on overtime shifts.

The applicant argued the arbitrator breached natural justice and reached an unreasonable decision by relying on a without-prejudice settlement.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator erred in admitting the settlement, this did not amount to a denial of natural justice.

The court concluded the arbitrator's decision was reasonable as it was independently supported by uncontradicted evidence and the wording of a prior agreement.

The respondent sought costs of $61,000 following a successful appeal regarding the Ontario Municipal Board's jurisdiction to order a joint board.

The Divisional Court denied the costs request, finding that the respondent caused unnecessary steps and lengthened the proceeding by failing to raise the jurisdictional issue at first instance or during the initial leave to appeal application.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to amend a judgment that approved an infant settlement, and sought leave to extend the time to appeal the original judgment.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the orders appealed from did not require payment of any amount by the appellant, and no leave to appeal had been granted.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the tenant a rent abatement for water damage extending back more than one year prior to the tenant's application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 29(2) and s. 30(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Board only has jurisdiction to award a rent abatement for breaches occurring within the one-year limitation period preceding the application.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to vary a final child support order and rescind arrears.

The original order imputed an income of $30,000, but the appellant provided uncontradicted evidence that he had not held employment since 1998 due to severe depression and was receiving disability benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring this material change in circumstances and relying on the respondent's unsworn statements.

The appeal was allowed, arrears were reduced to $15,240, and ongoing support was reduced to $161 per month.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that he was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The Tribunal found the appellant had a substantial impairment due to back pain but no substantial restriction in activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the standard of review was correctness for questions of law, the Tribunal did not apply an incorrect test, the evidentiary findings were open to the Tribunal, and the reasons were adequate.