McCartney

The appellants appealed an order granting the Ottawa Police Association a conditional representation order under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action involved 74 police officers who transferred from the OPP to the Ottawa Police Services Board and alleged negligent misrepresentation regarding their pension transfers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 12.08 does not require an action to benefit all members of an association, nor is it limited to collective actions.

The court upheld the motion judge's findings on common issues and preferable procedure, confirming that a conditional order to substitute an appropriate representative plaintiff was permissible.

The appellants appealed an order directing the sale of a residential property they co-owned as tenants in common with the respondent.

The appellants sought physical partition instead of sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property's configuration and the appellants' failure to pay municipal taxes and insurance made partition impractical and sale the most beneficial option.

The respondent's cross-appeal to purchase the appellants' share at a fixed price was dismissed, as joint tenants are entitled to the fair market value obtained through an open market sale.

The respondent was awarded costs for both the application and the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Judicial Council dismissing his complaints against a judge acting as a public inquiry commissioner.

The Council had dismissed the complaints on the basis that they concerned the judge's decision-making duties, which are subject to judicial review, rather than judicial misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Council's decisions were reasonable and that the application was barred by unreasonable delay of up to 69 months.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking his statement of claim.

The appellant sought an order from the Ontario court quashing a British Columbia Supreme Court decision that declared him a vexatious litigant, and sought interim compensation for lost teaching salary under a BC collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the claim disclosed no cause of action and that Ontario courts have no jurisdiction to overturn a BC court order or remedy a violation of a BC collective agreement.

The court found no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding his medication dosage for depression and misapplied the law by effectively requiring his impairment to be continuous rather than recurrent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the appellant's own testimony and that it correctly applied the statutory definition of disability.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him on the basis that the landlords required the basement unit for their daughter's use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by accepting an affidavit from the landlord on behalf of the 15-year-old daughter, failing to determine good faith, and ignoring the tenant's disabilities and the landlords' alleged breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the affidavit acceptable given the daughter's age and concluding the Board had reasonably considered all other matters.

The corporate defendant appealed an order striking its statement of defence for failing to comply with an interlocutory order requiring it to retain new counsel or obtain leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in concluding the defendant's recalcitrance and failure to comply with the clear terms of the order warranted the severe penalty of striking its pleadings.

The appellants appealed an order requiring the individual appellant to pay the respondent $22,253.23 pursuant to a consent judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider the factual matrix surrounding the settlement and misapplied section 30 of the OBCA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 30 was not contravened because the corporate defendant was not ordered to pay for the shares, and that the clear terms of the consent judgment did not require reference to the factual matrix.

The appellants were successful on appeal, significantly increasing their recovery from the trial judgment.

The respondent sought costs based on a pre-litigation offer that exceeded the appeal award but was only open for five days.

The court noted the respondent made no Rule 49 offer, while the appellants made three, though for amounts greater than their ultimate recovery.

Given the recovery and the necessity of the appeal, the court awarded the appellants $15,000 inclusive of costs.

The court issued an endorsement as to costs following an appeal.

Having reviewed the written submissions from both parties, the court fixed the costs payable to the successful respondent at $4,000.

The plaintiffs appealed a trial judgment regarding a contract for the construction of a home that was destroyed by fire before completion.

The trial judge found the plaintiffs had terminated the contract and awarded the defendant $100,000 on its counterclaim for lost profits, while awarding the plaintiffs a small net judgment from insurance proceeds.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the plaintiffs terminated the contract but found the trial judge erred in calculating the insurance trust funds and the counterclaim damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the counterclaim to $20,000 and varying the net judgment in favour of the plaintiffs to $60,765.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision not to process an application for the renewal of a body rub parlour licence.

The licence had automatically terminated under the municipal by-law when the controlling interest in the applicant corporation was transferred following the death of its principal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the automatic termination constituted a lawful revocation under the by-law, which permanently reduced the number of available licences and left the City with no authority to issue a new one.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to pay $3,000 in statutory compensation to former tenants who had received a notice of termination for conversion of their mobile home site.

The tenants were subsequently evicted for non-payment of rent and owed over $3,300 in arrears.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the compensation obligation survived the eviction and that the claim was not statute-barred.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the Board erred in law by failing to set off the rent arrears against the compensation owed, resulting in no net compensation payable to the tenants.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found a 9 percent rent increase levied exclusively against pet-owning tenants was an impermissible penalty under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Board held that this penalty substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and awarded a rent abatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Board properly looked at the real substance of the rent increase.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay $1,400 per month in spousal support.

The Divisional Court found no errors of fact or law in the trial judge's decision, noting the award was slightly below the midpoint of the suggested guidelines based on the parties' incomes at the time.

The court dismissed the appeal but advised the self-represented appellant that he could seek a variation of the support order due to his recent medical leave and reduced income.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought costs totaling approximately $98,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant conceded the respondents' entitlement to costs but argued the quantum was excessive, suggesting $20,000 was appropriate.

The Divisional Court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the appeal was not particularly complex despite the appellant's conduct lengthening the proceedings.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than an exact measure of actual costs, the court found the respondents' claimed hours and amounts to be unreasonable.

The court fixed total costs at $25,000, apportioned among the three respondent groups.

The appellant appealed a civil jury verdict dismissing his claims for assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of nervous shock against police, ambulance attendants, and store security, and awarding damages on the respondents' counterclaims.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing adjournments, admitting prejudicial expert testimony, and excluding medical reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's discretionary rulings on adjournments and evidence, and concluding there was a sufficient basis for the jury's punitive damages award.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision suspending his racing licenses for ten years and imposing a $20,000 fine for administering a performance-enhancing drug (EPO) to a horse.

The applicant argued his confession to investigators was involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the statement was admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and statutory compulsion, and that the common law confession rule and section 7 of the Charter did not apply to these administrative proceedings.

The court also upheld the penalty as reasonable given the need for general deterrence in the horse racing industry.

The applicants sought judicial review to set aside a settlement reached by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in a subrogated action against the respondent.

The Board, acting as dominus litis, settled the action for $130,000 after considering an independent legal opinion and the applicants' position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decision to compromise the lawsuit was reasonable, dismissing the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose records provided under the Casino Rama Revenue Agreement.

The applicant argued the records contained commercial information and their disclosure would cause harm.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the records related to the administration of funds, not commercial operations, and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of expected harm.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.