Lee K. Ferrier

The applicant union sought judicial review of a decision by the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) to approve a Service Accountability Agreement with a hospital, which included a plan to consolidate mental health services to eliminate a budget deficit.

The applicant argued the LHIN failed to engage in required public consultation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LHIN's funding decision did not constitute an 'integration decision' under the Local Health System Integration Act that would trigger statutory consultation requirements.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or legitimate expectations.

The complainant, who had bipolar disorder, was hired as a software program tester.

Shortly after starting, he disclosed his condition to his supervisor and began exhibiting pre-manic symptoms.

The employer terminated him ten days into his employment, claiming he misrepresented his ability to perform the job.

The Human Rights Tribunal found the employer discriminated against the complainant and failed its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate his disability, awarding damages and public interest remedies.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on discrimination, accommodation, and damages, but modified some of the public interest remedies.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which quashed its complaints regarding the property assessments of two properties.

The Board had found the City failed to comply with the notice provisions in s. 40(3) of the Assessment Act because it mailed the notices to the previous owner's address on the assessment roll despite knowing the properties had been sold.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the City acted reasonably and in good faith by using the address on the roll, which had not been revoked.

The Court found the Board erred in imposing a higher standard of inquiry on the municipality, set aside the decision, and remitted the complaints for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant drug manufacturer sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs refusing to list its generic drug on the Formulary at 85% of the brand name price.

The Executive Officer insisted on the standard 50% rate, citing an existing agreement with the brand name manufacturer and rejecting the applicant's rationale based on ongoing patent litigation costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Executive Officer's exercise of discretion and interpretation of the confidentiality provisions in the Regulation to be reasonable.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a Master's decision ordering them to answer certain discovery questions.

The plaintiff, a former CEO of Symcor, claimed a 10% equity interest based on his employment agreement.

The defendants argued the agreement was unenforceable.

During discovery, the defendants refused to answer questions regarding the drafting of a subsequent shareholders' agreement, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Master ordered the questions answered, finding no privilege or that privilege was waived.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal for Symcor regarding certain questions, finding good reason to doubt the Master's decision on privilege, but denied leave for the Banks and other questions.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had found that while the employee's behaviour, including racial slurs and breach of email policy, was inappropriate, it did not amount to just cause for summary dismissal without a clear warning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's application of the McKinley test for wrongful dismissal.

The appellants, who had previously been declared vexatious litigants, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing their motion for leave to institute further proceedings against the respondents.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that section 140(4)(e) of the Courts of Justice Act expressly precludes any appeal from a refusal to grant leave under section 140(3).

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to certify a class action against them regarding the manufacture and distribution of the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence and claimed restitutionary relief based on waiver of tort.

The defendants argued that proof of the amount of wrongful gain could not be a common issue and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that given the uncertain state of the law regarding waiver of tort, a full evidentiary record was necessary, and the motion judge did not err in certifying the common issues or finding a class action to be the preferable procedure.

The plaintiffs sued the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and others following the drowning death of a 7-year-old child who allegedly slipped down the concrete banks of Mimico Creek.

The TRCA moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no involvement with the adjacent apartment properties.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, and the TRCA appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the TRCA's affidavit evidence only addressed the adjacent properties and failed to address the plaintiffs' allegations regarding the design, maintenance, and attractive nuisance of the creek itself.

Because the TRCA did not meet its initial evidentiary burden to show there was no genuine issue for trial, the burden did not shift to the plaintiffs.

The appellant bar appealed a 10-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission for allegedly permitting drunkenness.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding that the Board completely misapprehended the evidence of a key defence witness and failed to provide adequate reasons.

Furthermore, the Court held that a 103-day delay in notifying the appellant of the allegations, combined with a lack of identifying particulars for the allegedly intoxicated patrons, severely prejudiced the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence, constituting a breach of natural justice.

The charges were permanently stayed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and retained a paralegal to negotiate a settlement with the tortfeasors' insurer.

The plaintiff later sued the tortfeasors and the paralegal, alleging the paralegal was negligent and the settlement was invalid.

The paralegal cross-claimed against the tortfeasors, arguing their insurer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff not to negotiate with an unauthorized paralegal.

The Divisional Court allowed the tortfeasors' appeal and struck the cross-claim, holding that a liability insurer owes no duty of care to a plaintiff making a claim against its insured, as this would create an impossible conflict of interest.

The applicant faculty association sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a policy grievance regarding the university's publication of student evaluations of teaching (SET) scores.

The arbitrator had found that publishing the scores did not violate the collective agreement or the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The Divisional Court applied the Dunsmuir framework, determining that the standard of review for the collective agreement interpretation was reasonableness, and for the FIPPA interpretation was correctness.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding her interpretation of 'personal information' in the collective agreement reasonable and her application of the employment-related records exclusion in FIPPA correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing an application for a rent reduction.

The Board had found that the rent applied only to the house and that the garage was provided free of charge.

The Divisional Court held this was a palpable and overriding error amounting to an error of law, as the lease explicitly included access to the garage and backyard.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing to determine if an abatement was appropriate.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent Chief Coroner to file a record of proceedings in a pending application for judicial review.

The underlying application sought to review the Chief Coroner's decision not to order an inquest into the death of the applicant's child.

The respondent argued that the decision was not the exercise of a statutory power of decision and generated no record of proceedings.

The court granted the motion, holding that as long as there is a pending application for judicial review, a record of proceedings must be filed, leaving the determination of reviewability to the reviewing panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to not deal with her complaint against the University of Windsor.

The applicant alleged that the university's policy of keeping her failed first-year marks on her transcript was discriminatory.

The Commission dismissed the complaint because it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's decision reasonable and holding that the ongoing presence of the marks on the transcript constituted continuing effects of a past act, not a continuing contravention of the Code.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission referring a discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicants argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the postulancy process is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code and the subject matter of the complaint had ceased to exist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the preliminary jurisdictional issue of whether the relationship constitutes a 'service' is best decided in the first instance by the Tribunal, and that the amended complaint was properly before the Tribunal.

The plaintiff entered into a contract for job-search services with BH International and paid a fee.

When BH closed its Canadian operations, its former employee, the defendant Smith, started a new job-search agency, RD Group International.

The trial judge found RD and Smith liable to refund the plaintiff's fee, concluding RD was a successor to BH based on a memorandum sent to clients.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, finding a palpable and overriding error as the memorandum provided no evidence of successor liability or assumption of contracts, and there were no grounds to pierce the corporate veil to hold Smith personally liable.

The moving party sought an order extending the time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Small Claims Court decision.

The moving party had previously brought an unsuccessful motion for a new trial in the Small Claims Court.

The Divisional Court applied the test from Frey v. MacDonald and found the moving party had not satisfied the requirements.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.

The applicant sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission for an EPO infraction.

The applicant argued that a Notice to the profession issued by the Commission constituted an error of law and that the penalty was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Notice was merely a declaration of intention to impose more severe penalties and that the Commission's penalty decision deserved deference.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of Gans J. The Divisional Court considered the criteria for setting aside a Registrar's order, noting that the overriding consideration is what the justice of the case requires.

The court found that Gans J. was entitled to conclude there was insufficient evidence to relieve the appellant from the operation of the rules.

The motion was dismissed with costs payable from the estate and charged against the moving party's interest.