Lynne C. Leitch

The applicant brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of drugs and other items seized following his arrest for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him and that the subsequent searches of his person, vehicle, and backpack were unlawful, breaching ss. 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances including confidential informant tips, corroborating surveillance, and the observation of a distinctive backpack linked to drug trafficking, the arresting officer had objectively reasonable and probable grounds.

Even if a Charter breach had been established, the court concluded that the Grant factors would favour admission of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to dismiss the applicant tenant's appeal for delay.

The applicant had previously sought relief from forfeiture after the respondent terminated the commercial lease for unpaid rent, but the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a notice of appeal but failed to perfect the appeal within the required time.

Applying the factors for an extension of time to appeal, the court found no explanation for the delay, prejudice to the respondent who was not receiving rent, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for delay.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal two Small Claims Court judgments, citing severe health issues and medical treatments as the reason for the delay.

The respondent opposed the motion, highlighting the appellant's history of non-compliance with court orders and multiple adjournments.

The Divisional Court applied the test for extending time to appeal and found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit or any merit to the proposed appeals.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant moved for an order compelling the plaintiff, who resides in British Columbia, to post security for costs in an action alleging historical abuse.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis of impecuniosity.

The court found that the plaintiff had made full and frank disclosure of her financial circumstances, establishing that she was impecunious.

The court also found that the plaintiff's claim, which would largely turn on credibility, was not plainly devoid of merit.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, with costs of $5,000 awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim suspension order imposed by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee following allegations of sexual abuse and subsequent breaches of a prior monitoring order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procedural fairness complaints were premature and should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also rejected the applicant's statutory interpretation argument that the entire 58-member committee was required to issue the order, and concluded that the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's demonstrated inability to comply with the monitoring order.

The appellant, a commissioned sales representative, appealed the dismissal of her claim for unpaid vacation pay under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge had found that the employer could satisfy its vacation pay obligations by paying them out of commission sales.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the employer failed to show the employee's commission rates were adjusted to include vacation pay or that she received a benefit equal to her statutory entitlements.

The Court also found the claim was not statute-barred, as the limitation period began on the last day of employment.

Judgment was granted for the appellant in the amount of $35,396.02.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board upholding an eviction notice.

The appellants argued that the Board erred in finding that the evidence of 'V.C.' was irrelevant because he was not an owner and could not have entered into a three-year lease.

They submitted that the definition of 'landlord' under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 includes any person who permits occupancy.

The appellants conceded that the Divisional Court could not grant the damages they sought, and that even if the matter were remitted for a re-hearing, the Board lacked jurisdiction to award those damages.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for its electricians.

The applicant challenged the Board's use of a 'bright line' test to determine the bargaining unit based on employees working on a Saturday filing date, the Board's finding that a union organizer's conduct did not violate s. 76 of the Labour Relations Act, and the wording of the ballot question.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission refusing his license to work as the Clerk of Scales.

The Tribunal found the applicant accepted cash gifts from jockeys and failed to follow breathalyzer protocols, concluding there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with integrity.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging a global price-fixing conspiracy by the defendants regarding airfreight shipping services.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action as it related to absent foreign claimants, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court granted the motion, finding that the real and substantial connection test should not be applied to establish jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants, as an Ontario judgment would not be recognized abroad, offending principles of order, fairness, and comity.

Alternatively, the court held that even if jurisdiction existed, it would decline it on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a slip and fall in a grocery store produce section.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on water and/or ice originating from broccoli displayed on crushed ice.

The defendants argued they maintained a reasonable inspection and maintenance system and that the area had been inspected minutes before the fall.

The court held that conflicting evidence regarding the store’s drainage system, staff training, and compliance with inspection procedures created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.

A media organization applied under s. 487.0193 of the Criminal Code to revoke or vary a production order requiring it to produce unedited recordings of interviews with an accused person broadcast by television and radio.

The applicant argued that compliance was unreasonable and that the court should review the validity of the production order, particularly considering the media’s role under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court held that the statutory review under s. 487.0193 concerns whether compliance with the order is unreasonable, not whether the issuing justice properly granted the order, which remains the domain of certiorari review.

Applying the principles governing production orders and the special considerations for media searches articulated in CBC v. Lessard, the court found the order reasonable.

The requested material was already prepared and publicly broadcast, making compliance neither onerous nor intrusive on press freedom.

A condominium corporation operating a private sewage pumping station sought a declaration that neighbouring townhouse developments connected to the system were required to contribute to operating and maintenance costs.

The original joint use and maintenance agreement contained positive covenants that did not run with the land, preventing direct contractual enforcement against subsequent owners.

The court held that although the covenant could not bind successors in title, the unit owner defendant had knowingly received and benefited from sewage services for years while making intermittent payments.

Applying principles of implied contract and unjust enrichment, the court found the defendant had been enriched, the plaintiff suffered corresponding deprivation, and there was no juristic reason for the enrichment.

The court declared that the unit owner defendant must pay a pro rata share of the sewage system’s operating and maintenance costs.

On Rule 21 motions, the court considered whether parents and a sibling could maintain negligence claims arising from a child protection and police investigation into allegations that one child sexually assaulted another.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the parents’ negligence claim against the child protection agency failed, distinguishing authorities that concerned children in care and emphasizing the absence of an adversarial child protection proceeding, the lack of conflicting statutory duties on the pleaded facts, and the absence of an alternative remedy.

The court also held that bad faith was sufficiently pleaded against the child protection worker to avoid statutory immunity under s. 15(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

However, the court struck the claims by the parents and sibling against the police defendants, finding no sufficiently close and direct relationship at the proximity stage of the Anns analysis.

On a defence production motion in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court considered whether documents from the plaintiff's earlier accident litigation were relevant and producible.

The court held that medical and vocational reports, defence medical reports, an investigation report, and the plaintiff's prior discovery transcript were relevant to pre-existing impairment, causation, credibility, and damages.

Applying the deemed undertaking rule, the court found production was permitted where the prior defendant consented and where certain documents were not obtained through discovery.

Pleadings, motion materials, correspondence, actuarial and income loss materials, and the particulars of the prior settlement were held irrelevant.

The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim under unidentified or uninsured motorist coverage as statute-barred.

The court applied the Court of Appeal's discoverability analysis for contractual indemnity claims against insurers, holding that the limitation period does not begin merely when the claimant learns an unidentified vehicle may have been involved.

Rather, the loss arises when the insurer fails to satisfy a valid indemnity claim after demand, provided there is no other third-party liability coverage available.

The June 2009 correspondence was found to be only notice of a potential claim, not a demand for indemnification, and the motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to add the officiating referees and their associations as defendants to an action arising from a spectator injury at a high school football game.

The motion was brought more than two years after the incident, raising a limitation period issue.

The plaintiffs argued they only discovered the potential liability of the referees during the examinations for discovery of the existing defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding there was a live issue of fact regarding discoverability and no non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendants.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1996 child support order, seeking retroactive child support, ongoing support for an adult child in full-time studies, and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent had failed to provide income disclosure for several years and had received a grievance settlement after his employment was terminated.

The court ordered ongoing child support, fixed arrears at $12,500.40 retroactive to 2006 (including the grievance settlement in his income), ordered contribution to section 7 expenses, and required the respondent to maintain life insurance.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 in costs due to the respondent's failure to make timely financial disclosure.

The applicant sought indefinite spousal support of $1,000 per month due to a disability that rendered her unable to work.

The respondent proposed $400 per month for a limited duration.

The parties were married for seven years.

The court balanced the applicant's indefinite needs against the short duration of the marriage and the respondent's financial circumstances, including his new child.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered the respondent to pay $622 per month for approximately six and a half years, and to secure this obligation through a life insurance trust.

The applicants and respondents, siblings, settled an estate litigation matter regarding their mother's estate and the respondents' actions as attorneys for property and estate trustees.

The settlement left the issue of costs to be determined by the court.

Both the applicants and the respondents sought their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the commencement of the application was reasonable and that the respondents had failed to adequately address the applicants' reasonable questions early on.

However, given the divided success in the settlement, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.