Lynne C. Leitch

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's refusal to declare a mistrial and recuse himself from a statutory accident benefits arbitration.

The applicant argued that the arbitrator's exposure to settlement offers and off-the-record discussions during an emotional outburst by the self-represented respondent created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's knowledge of settlement information did not automatically mandate a mistrial and that his handling of the situation did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant trade unions sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing their application to declare Cadillac Fairview a related or successor employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board had found that the amalgamation of two corporations did not erode bargaining rights and that there was no sale of a business.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The respondent sought costs of a one-day appeal on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $76,138.70.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs as there was no misconduct by the appellant.

The court also found the 193.7 hours claimed by the respondent's four lawyers to be excessive for a case of moderate complexity.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellant Registrar appealed a Board decision granting a liquor licence to the respondent nightclub.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly consider the past conduct of the respondent's principal and the public interest concerns of local residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal tests, properly weighed the evidence, and provided adequate reasons for its conclusions.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal adding a former human resources administrator as a respondent party to an unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the administrator as a party, as the complaint contained no allegations that she personally breached the Agricultural Employees Protection Act.

The Court dismissed the bias allegations, finding that the applicants had waived their objections and failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The City of Ottawa applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the City failed to provide uninterrupted eating periods to paramedics, contrary to the Employment Standards Act.

The City argued that the collective agreement provided a greater benefit by paying for all eating periods and using best efforts to keep them uninterrupted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's conclusion that the collective agreement did not provide a greater benefit than the statutory right to time off was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant wife appealed a review order that reduced her spousal support from $2,700 to $1,350 per month and imposed a termination date.

The parties had been married for 25 years.

The reviewing judge had reduced support based on the respondent husband's expected reduction in income and a finding of 'double-dipping' related to the equalization of his business.

The Divisional Court found that the reviewing judge erred in principle by imposing a time limit on support without analyzing whether the objectives of the Divorce Act were met, noting that time-limited support is only appropriate in unusual circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and the original support order was reinstated.

The appellant appealed an order denying her motion to set aside an ex parte order that amended a consent order regarding the division of her pension.

The original consent order required the appellant to transfer $60,000 of her pension credits to the respondent to equalize net family property.

Because the pension plan could not transfer credits, the respondent obtained an ex parte order assigning 38.78% of the pension without a $60,000 cap.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact by concluding the parties intended to transfer a stream of income beyond $60,000.

The appeal was allowed and the ex parte order was set aside.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion to enforce a settlement.

The respondent had been seriously injured in a school wrestling incident.

The respondent's former solicitor accepted a settlement offer, but the respondent promptly repudiated it, claiming he gave no instructions.

The motion judge found that the appellant's counsel was on notice of 'red flags' regarding the respondent's solicitor's authority, as correspondence indicated the solicitor was taking negotiating positions without consulting his client.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and justified refusing to enforce the settlement.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision resolving a work jurisdiction dispute over stone masonry work on a construction project.

The Board had ordered the subcontractor to assign the work to the respondent union based on collective bargaining agreement obligations.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board's consideration of the employer's identity, local area practices, and the general contractor's non-party status was rational and supported by evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeal of a minor variance without a full hearing.

The Board had found that the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision and concluding that the Board did not err in law in its assessment of the evidence or the statutory requirements.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award that allowed a grievance by a police officer who was denied selection for a canine officer training course.

The arbitrator found the applicant violated the collective agreement by not giving the officer an opportunity to respond to performance concerns before making the decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the award, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was unreasonable.

The Court found no requirement in the agreement to engage the officer in the selection process in that manner, and noted the arbitrator failed to address the core issue of whether the applicant's decision was made with just cause.