Marco Paolo Falco

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) upholding the Director's proposal to refuse to renew its residential care licence.

The LAT had excluded the appellant's proposed expert evidence regarding fire safety and the standard of care for treatment foster homes, citing efficiency and lack of necessity.

The Divisional Court found that the excluded evidence was central to the case and clearly relevant, and that its exclusion amounted to a palpable and overriding error that prejudiced the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed, the LAT's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different panel.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court, which had found the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The case concerned the interpretation of the Pay Equity Act, specifically whether the statutory proxy method, used to establish pay equity in female-dominated workplaces, must also be used to maintain it.

The Tribunal had ruled that the proxy method was not required for maintenance, leading to an internal comparison method.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable, as it ignored the Act's purpose, scheme, and wording, which necessitate an ongoing comparison to male (or deemed male) comparators to redress systemic gender discrimination.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to specify procedures for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The Participating Nursing Homes (PNH) appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had directed the PNH and unions to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS) for maintaining pay equity, specifically to address changes in job duties and ensure ongoing compliance with the Pay Equity Act.

The PNH argued that the Act did not require them to tie their maintenance obligation to the proxy employer's historical valuation of male jobs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's authority to ensure compliance with the Act and the necessity of ongoing comparison, including through the proxy method, to maintain pay equity.

The applicant sought judicial review of the AGCO's decision refusing a retail sales authorization for a cannabis store.

The AGCO rejected the application because the proposed location was within 150 metres of a school, measured using a straight-line method.

The applicant argued the distance should be measured by the shortest publicly available walking route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the AGCO's straight-line measurement method was a reasonable interpretation of the Cannabis Licence Act and its regulations, and that the method was sufficiently transparent to the public.

The receiver of a film animation studio brought a motion for directions regarding the distribution of approximately $1,150,000 in tax credits.

A priority dispute arose between the studio's secured creditor, who held a registered general security agreement, and several film producers who claimed the tax credits were assigned to them or held in trust pursuant to their production services agreements.

The court held that the producers' interests in the tax credits were, in substance, security interests under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA).

Because the producers failed to register their interests under the PPSA, the secured creditor's prior registered security interest took priority.

The court declined to impose a constructive or Quistclose trust, noting that sophisticated commercial parties should not be relieved of their obligation to register security.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision regarding the maintenance of pay equity in predominantly female workplaces.

The Tribunal had ruled that the Pay Equity Act did not require employers to use the proxy comparison method on an ongoing basis to maintain pay equity.

The Divisional Court found that while the Act itself does not violate section 15 of the Charter, the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable because it failed to consider Charter values.

The Court held that a proportionate balancing of Charter equality rights and the Act's statutory mandate requires that women in predominantly female workplaces have continued access to male comparators through the proxy method to maintain pay equity.

A case conference was held to address procedural issues following previous endorsements.

The court directed the parties to draft separate orders for six prior motions.

The court also scheduled a Rule 21 motion brought by the defendant Shapiro regarding the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, and scheduled the plaintiff's renewed motion for a Mareva injunction.

Finally, the court set a timetable for written submissions regarding the Atkinson defendants' request to pay outstanding costs orders from funds held in trust.

The appellants, defendants in a mortgage guarantee action, commenced third party claims against their former lawyer for contribution and indemnity, alleging he failed to obtain releases of their personal guarantees as instructed.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims as statute-barred under section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, finding an absolute two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 18 does not establish an absolute limitation period but rather works with sections 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act to create a presumed start date subject to discoverability principles.

The court also found the motion judge erred in principle by not fully appreciating the complexity of the discoverability issue when deciding to proceed by summary judgment.

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment dismissing an appeal of an arbitrator's preliminary award.

The franchisor appealed the arbitrator's determination that the limitation period for arbitration had not expired.

The dispute arose from a franchisee's notice of rescission of a franchise agreement based on alleged non-disclosure by the franchisor.

The central issue was whether a mediation requirement in the franchise agreement constituted a precondition to arbitration that suspended the running of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The arbitrator severed the requirement that mediation occur in Delaware, finding it contrary to the Arthur Wishart Act, and determined that the limitation period commenced only after mediation was deemed completed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the arbitrator's decision, applying a reasonableness standard of review.

This is a costs judgment following a successful appeal by the respondent.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $28,029.42, while the applicants argued for no costs or a limit of $12,000.

The court awarded the respondent the full amount requested, considering factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision emphasized the respondent's success, the significant importance and complexity of the legal issues, and the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rates and time expended.

The appellant, a private school, expelled a student for smoking marijuana in the school residence.

The student and his parents successfully applied to the Divisional Court for judicial review of the expulsion decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act (JRPA).

The school appealed, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the expulsion decision was governed by the private contract between the parents and the school, not public law.

The decision lacked a sufficient public dimension to be subject to public law remedies under the JRPA.

The Attorney General brought a motion to consolidate a Superior Court constitutional application and a Divisional Court appeal regarding the mandatory revocation of a pharmacist's license for professional misconduct.

The Attorney General also sought to remit the constitutional challenge to the Discipline Committee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the constitutional application at first instance.

The court also declined to remit the matter to the Discipline Committee, holding that exceptional circumstances justified early judicial intervention given the Committee's lack of expertise and inability to issue a general declaration of invalidity.

The Service Employees International Union applied for judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a zero salary increase for the first two years of a collective agreement with 98 nursing homes.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably ignored the employers' ability to pay, mischaracterized Ontario's economy, and relied on inappropriate comparable settlements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's application of the statutory criteria under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and his ultimate award were reasonable and entitled to a high degree of deference.

The applicants sought judicial review of a private school's decision to expel a student after he admitted to smoking marijuana in a dormitory room.

The Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the decision because the school was created by a Special Act, making its disciplinary decisions an exercise of a statutory power.

The majority quashed the expulsion decision, finding a breach of procedural fairness because the student and his parents were denied an adequate opportunity to be heard regarding the appropriate sanction.

The court declined to order the school to confer a diploma, remitting the matter to the Head of School.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to dismiss the respondents' civil action based on statutory immunity under s. 38.1 of the Independent Health Facilities Act and abuse of process.

The respondents cross-appealed the striking of allegations relating to investigations under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeals and the cross-appeal, holding that while s. 38.1 provides immunity for losses resulting from specific regulatory orders, factual findings at trial are required to determine if any claimed losses fall outside this protection.

The abuse of process arguments were also left open for trial.