Low J.

The defendants moved for leave to appeal an order certifying a class action brought by the plaintiff franchisee.

The defendants challenged the certification of several common issues relating to GMCL's alleged breach of statutory duties and Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP's alleged negligence and breach of contract.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal in part.

Leave was granted regarding the common issues of whether GMCL failed to disclose material facts and interfered with the right to associate, as these required individual inquiries.

Leave was also granted regarding the claims against the law firm, as there was conflicting authority on whether loss of chance requires proof that the plaintiff would have acted differently but for the breach.

Leave was denied for the remaining issues, and a request to stay the action against the law firm was refused.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the public disclosure of the first three digits of postal codes and the number of sexual offenders in each area from the Sex Offender Registry.

The Ministry argued the Commissioner erred in interpreting the law enforcement exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner applied the correct legal test, did not misapprehend the evidence, and reasonably concluded that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would cause endangerment or non-compliance with reporting requirements.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had overturned a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Complaints Committee to take no further action on a complaint.

The complaint alleged the physician treated a patient with contempt and prejudice before the patient's death from pneumonia.

The Divisional Court found that the Board failed to apply the proper standard of reasonableness and deference to the Committee's screening function.

The Court held that the Board's requirement for further investigation into the physician's credibility and use of the word 'lifestyle' was unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the Committee's decision was restored.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for partial summary judgment.

The defendants had argued that the plaintiffs' claim for pecuniary loss arising from a motor vehicle accident was statute-barred, relying on the assertion that separate limitation periods apply to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision that the limitation issue should be resolved on a full factual record at trial.

Following a costs endorsement, the applicant sought costs for preparing his costs submissions, arguing that his offers to settle the quantum of costs exceeded the costs ultimately awarded to the respondents.

The applicant relied on Rule 49.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the request, holding that while Rule 49 applies to motions, it does not apply to offers to settle the quantum of costs of a motion.

No costs were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order that reversed a master's decision granting leave to deliver a supplementary affidavit under Rule 39.02(2).

The motions judge had held that the affidavit, based on information and belief, was inadmissible and that a reasonable explanation for delay was required.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's ruling on the admissibility of hearsay evidence under Rule 39.01(4) and noting conflicting decisions on whether a reasonable explanation for delay is a strict prerequisite for granting leave.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued it should be exempt from costs as a public interest litigant.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicant had a material interest in the proceeding, as success would have halted an underlying police disciplinary hearing and an abuse of process motion against the applicant.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $33,434.93.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for leave to appeal an order regarding a capacity examination, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the appellant filed an unnecessarily voluminous 90-page factum, it did not create a significant additional burden.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $8,000 each for two respondents and $5,000 for the third, reflecting the moderate complexity of the issues and the principle of proportionality.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $1,628.98 in quantum meruit for boat repairs.

The appellant argued the claim was barred by Part VI of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 because the respondent failed to provide a written estimate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 was not yet in force when the repairs occurred.

Furthermore, the predecessor legislation, the Motor Vehicle Repair Act, did not apply because a boat does not fall within the definition of a 'motor vehicle' under the Highway Traffic Act.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order regarding the release of her solicitor's file.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to explain the delay in bringing the motion.

Furthermore, the court held that the tests for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) were not met, as there was no conflicting decision and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the original order, which was based on the evidence before the motion judge.

The appellants brought a civil action in Small Claims Court against a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, alleging injurious falsehood, misfeasance in public office, obstruction of justice, and fabricating evidence.

The claims arose from the judge's refusal to allow one appellant to act as agent for the other in family court, and the judge's subsequent editing of the hearing transcript.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action without reasons.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the failure to provide reasons was an error of law, the matter could be decided de novo.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the judge's actions were carried out in the course of his judicial functions and were therefore protected by absolute judicial immunity.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to require his parents to undergo capacity assessments and to allow him to examine his mother for discovery.

The underlying dispute involved the validity of powers of attorney executed by the mother, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease.

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.

The court held that section 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, rather than section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, governed the request for a capacity assessment, and that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the assessments and discovery.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to transfer their Small Claims Court action and the plaintiff's Small Claims Court action for unpaid wages into the Superior Court, and to consolidate them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The defendants had strategically commenced their claim in Small Claims Court and could still commence a new action in the Superior Court without prejudice, as no limitation period had expired.

The applicant lawyer moved for a stay of professional misconduct proceedings before the Law Society of Upper Canada pending his application for judicial review.

The judicial review application alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one of the Hearing Panel members.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court also noted the applicant's delay in perfecting the judicial review application.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike out applications brought by four physicians.

The physicians had applied to the Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The College argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matters should be heard by the administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for striking pleadings and properly concluded it was not plain and obvious the applications would fail, as the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction over Charter challenges.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding damages to both respondents for lost baggage on an international flight.

Only one respondent had checked the lost bag, which contained items belonging to both.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, only the passenger who actually checked the baggage is entitled to claim compensation for its loss.

The respondents' cross-appeal, arguing that liability limits should not apply because they were not given notice, was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for overtime, mileage, and termination pay.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the personal judgment against Andrejs Ritins as no claim was pleaded against him.

The court also found the trial judge erred in imposing joint and several liability on the two corporate defendants, as one was not incorporated until after some obligations accrued.

The court upheld the overtime and mileage claims based on contract, and awarded $2,300 in termination pay against Ritins International Inc., reducing the total judgment against it to $5,598.18.