Lee K. Ferrier

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal confirming the Superintendent's consent to merge two pension plans following a corporate amalgamation.

The appellant argued the merger and subsequent use of the actuarial surplus from one plan to fund contribution holidays for the merged plan constituted a revocation of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and correct.

The court held that the plan documents permitted the merger and that using actuarial surplus to fund contribution holidays while a plan is ongoing does not constitute a revocation of trust.

The appellants sought a new hearing before a differently constituted Human Rights Tribunal, arguing a lack of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found conflicting evidence regarding attempts at service, a suspicion of evasion, and a failure to use available translation services.

Concluding that procedural fairness was not achieved on the record, the court ordered a new hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal and made no order as to costs.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an urgent application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a cease and desist order regarding an unlawful strike by the Amalgamated Transit Union that shut down public transit.

The Board Chair held a teleconference hearing at 5:30 a.m. without the Union's participation, granting the order.

Later that day, a Vice-Chair reconsidered the decision, limiting each side's presentation time, and upheld the order.

The Union applied for judicial review, arguing a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion to abridge its procedures and that the urgent circumstances justified the expedited process and limited presentation time.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a dismissed motion for summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

On consent, no costs were awarded for the motion for leave to appeal or the appeal itself.

Regarding the underlying motion for summary judgment, the court declined to award costs to the successful respondent because it had failed to file a key affidavit for tactical reasons.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal of a refusal to certify a class proceeding regarding pension plan amendments, the respondents sought costs.

The appellants argued that no costs should be awarded, relying on the public interest and novel point of law provisions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Divisional Court found no special circumstances to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court awarded costs to the respondents, including disbursements for a responding report on a fresh evidence motion.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, the court determined the costs to be awarded to the respondents.

The respondents sought $36,915 in fees, which the court found to be substantially beyond what might reasonably be anticipated.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Children's Aid Society applied for judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry that allowed public disclosure of CAS documents containing information reported to the Child Abuse Register.

The Commissioner had reasoned that because the documents came from CAS files rather than the Register itself, they were not protected by the confidentiality provision in s. 75(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the ruling, holding that a literal interpretation would lead to an absurdity and frustrate the legislative intent.

The court found that the information in the CAS files and the information protected by the Register's confidentiality provision are co-extensive and must be protected from public disclosure.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for a single-family home.

The property had been inadvertently rezoned to permit such a home due to a clerical error, which the Town subsequently corrected with an amending by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Chief Building Official correctly considered the pending, more restrictive amending by-law as 'applicable law' under the Building Code Act when making her decision, as it would have retroactive effect once appeals were exhausted.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which had ruled that a law firm was not in a conflict of interest and could continue representing the respondents.

The law firm had previously represented the applicant local union before it was placed in trusteeship.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

Applying the MacDonald Estate test, the Court found the law firm possessed relevant confidential information and there was a risk of prejudice to the former client.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was quashed, and the law firm was ordered to cease acting against its former client.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating her tenancy for failure to pay rent and refusing to set aside the termination order.

The tenant had a history of paying rent late due to the timing of her alimony cheques and had breached a previous conditional order requiring payment by the 10th of each month.

The Divisional Court found that the Board Member committed a breach of natural justice by failing to afford the tenant an opportunity to provide evidence or make submissions concerning relief from forfeiture under s. 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The City of Ottawa sought judicial review of an Arbitration Board decision that reinstated an employee who had been terminated for excessive absenteeism under a Last Chance Agreement.

The Board found that the employee suffered from a disability (an anxio-depressive state) and that the City discriminated against her by counting disability-related absences toward the threshold in the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the Board's findings of disability and prima facie discrimination were supported by the evidence and not patently unreasonable.

The appellant tenant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a residential tenancy dispute.

The tenant had paid a full year's rent upfront, along with security and key deposits.

The trial judge awarded the tenant the return of deposits, compensation for a missing parking space, and $500 in punitive damages, while allowing the landlord's counterclaim for property damage.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the punitive damages and counterclaim findings but found the trial judge erred in failing to award interest on the entire prepaid rent balance as provided in the lease.

The appeal was allowed in part to award $826.97 in interest.

The appellants appealed the decision of the motion judge refusing to certify their proposed class proceedings against the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission regarding amendments to its pension plan.

The appellants alleged the pension plan was an irrevocable trust and the amendments constituted a breach of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the motion judge made no errors of law, no palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that her conclusions on mixed fact and law regarding common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiffs were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that voided a four-day suspension imposed on a grievor.

The Board had found that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to advise the grievor of his right to union representation during a police interview at which a supervisor was present.

The Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

Finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement and its application of the automatic voiding remedy were not patently unreasonable, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision making her three children Crown wards, with the youngest child made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother argued the trial judge failed to explicitly consider the children's native heritage, erred in finding the youngest child adoptable without expert evidence, and erred in denying sibling access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge implicitly considered the native heritage provisions, expert evidence of adoptability was unnecessary for a healthy three-year-old, and the decision to prioritize adoption over sibling access was open to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim against the individual defendant, the sole director and officer of the corporate defendant, for breach of trust under s. 13(1) of the Construction Lien Act.

The appellant argued that where there is a sole director, the onus shifts to that individual to disprove acquiescence in the corporation's breach of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 13(1) does not shift the onus and that actual acquiescence must be proven.

As there was no evidence of the individual defendant's active participation, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's approvals regarding the privatization of hospital facilities.

A non-party, THICC, asserted that certain documents in the Minister's record were confidential.

A Master heard a motion regarding the content of the record and ruled the documents should be publicly filed.

THICC appealed, arguing the Master lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held that while a Master does not have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory motion in a judicial review application, a judge may refer an interlocutory issue to a Master acting as a referee.

The Court found that the case management judge had directed such a reference and that the Master made no reversible error in applying the Sierra Club test to deny the sealing order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order dismissing a motion for judgment on executed Minutes of Settlement.

The motions judge had found genuine issues for trial but then added inconsistent reasons stating he would have found in favour of the applicant if he was in error.

The Divisional Court held that the primary finding of genuine issues for trial was supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal, noting the subsequent comments were unnecessary and beyond the judge's jurisdiction on a Rule 49.09 motion.

The applicant, Geranium Corporation, sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner exempting a letter submitted by a resident to the Town of Innisfil from disclosure under s. 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

The applicant argued that the non-disclosure deprived it of knowing allegations made against it prior to a town council decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commissioner's interpretation of MFIPPA reasonable.

The court noted that the Commissioner's decision did not prevent the Ontario Municipal Board from ordering production of the document in related proceedings.