McRae

The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal a costs award of $3,000 made against him by Pitt J. The application was filed six months after the order, well beyond the seven-day limit prescribed by Rule 62.02.

The Divisional Court refused to extend the time due to the inordinate and unexplained delay.

The court also noted there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the original costs award and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, awarding $2,000 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy-Naturopathy.

The applicant also brought a motion for an interim stay, while the respondent Board brought a cross-motion to quash the application.

The Board conceded that the Complaints Committee's proceedings were void ab initio because the Board lacked jurisdiction to delegate its disciplinary powers to a committee.

The court agreed, finding the proceedings and any resulting agreements void.

Consequently, the court allowed the cross-motion and dismissed the application for judicial review as an academic exercise.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for sexual and professional misconduct involving a 15-year-old vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the penalty was unduly harsh and that the committee failed to properly weigh expert and character evidence regarding his mental disorder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the committee's findings and the penalty of revocation were reasonably supported by the evidence, given the overwhelming aggravating factors.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to strike an affidavit from the appeal book in an appeal from a human rights tribunal decision.

The affidavit contained notes and subjective observations regarding the tribunal's conduct during the hearing, which the Commission argued went beyond permissible gap-filling evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit was not fresh evidence but was relevant to the issues of bias and partiality raised on appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $5,500 for the sale of welding wire.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the wire was still certified and failed to appreciate the extent of the defects.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and there was no palpable and overriding error.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to decline to deal with her complaint of discrimination based on marital status and age.

The Commission had found the complaint to be vexatious and out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission was entitled to rely on the definition of 'vexatious' from Black's Law Dictionary and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding $3,000 plus costs for defamation.

On appeal, the appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce fresh medical records regarding his psychiatric condition, arguing it should relieve him of liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the Palmer test and finding the evidence could have been adduced at trial and would not have altered the result.

The court found no error in the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding $4,000 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which denied its request to be reclassified to the manufacturing rate applicable to a company that owned 50% of its shares.

The Divisional Court held that the tribunal, as a specialized body protected by a privative clause, was entitled to curial deference.

The court found that the tribunal's conclusion that the companies were not 'associated' under the Act was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, revoking his license, and imposing a $25,000 costs award.

The misconduct stemmed from his failure to supervise an EEG clinic where a technician infected numerous patients with Hepatitis B. The Divisional Court upheld the misconduct findings but found the penalty of license revocation unreasonable, as the appellant posed no risk practicing solely as a neurologist.

The court substituted a two-year suspension and a lifetime ban from acting as a medical director, while upholding the costs award.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a case management master's order that denied full documentary production prior to a motion to stay the action for arbitration.

The Divisional Court clarified the standard of review for orders of case management masters, holding that discretionary decisions and interlocutory matters of law not vital to the disposition of the lawsuit are subject to a standard of deference and should not be interfered with unless clearly wrong.

Finding that the master's decision on documentary production was not vital to the disposition of the lawsuit, the court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a chartered accountant, appealed the revocation of his public accounting licence by the Public Accountants Council of Ontario.

The appellant's licence was initially subject to revocation due to his bankruptcy, but the Council adjourned the hearing on conditions, including an undertaking not to practice.

The appellant breached the undertaking, failed to cooperate with inspections, and failed to attend the reconvened hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the revocation and concluding that the Council acted reasonably in proceeding in the appellant's absence.

The Township of Dymond brought an application for judicial review to set aside a municipal restructuring order made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that amalgamated it with two other towns.

The applicant argued that the Minister lacked jurisdiction under the former Municipal Act, breached natural justice by not holding a hearing, and violated the spirit of the legislation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory pre-conditions for the 'double majority' rule were met, rights had accrued before the new Act came into force, and there was no requirement for a hearing before the Minister issued the order.

The applicant, a real estate broker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) that found him guilty of professional misconduct for advertising properties without consent.

The applicant argued that RECO did not exercise a statutory power of decision and alleged bias in the disciplinary process.

The Divisional Court held that RECO's disciplinary bodies do exercise a statutory power of decision subject to judicial review.

However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, as the applicant was provided full disclosure and a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Travel Industry Council of Ontario appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that allowed a compensation claim by a travel agent.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in substituting its own finding for the date of the event giving rise to the claim and failed to provide sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal had the right to substitute the date under the Regulation made under the Travel Industry Act, the date found was reasonable, and the written reasons provided were sufficient.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship leading to adoption with no access.

The appellants conceded that summary judgment was appropriate but argued it was unfair to proceed while the mother was unrepresented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that wardship leading to adoption with access was not possible under the legislation and not in the child's best interests.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its applications for certification, termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights under s. 66 of the Labour Relations Act, and allegations of unfair labour practices under s. 53.

The Board had found that the preconditions for s. 66 were not met because the respondent union was already certified and the agreement merely expanded pre-existing bargaining rights to a new facility.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's interpretation of the Act and its factual findings regarding majority support and lack of employer support were within its specialized expertise.

Finding the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its policy grievance.

The grievance alleged that the respondent union violated the collective agreement by maintaining that bargaining unit employees were not required to work on paid holidays without their consent.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was supported by the contractual language.

Although the arbitrator erred in referencing the 'no contracting out' provision of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the court concluded that this was not the basis for his decision and upheld his findings as reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a medical doctor, appealed a decision of the disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The committee had revoked his licence and ordered him to pay $63,235 in costs after finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The Divisional Court found that the committee made an obvious error in its written reasons by stating the appellant had a disregard for the welfare of his patients, a finding it had explicitly rejected during the oral hearing.

The court intervened, setting aside the revocation and substituting a one-year suspension, and reduced the costs award to $10,000.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify her action as a class proceeding.

She alleged that she and other women were coerced into posing nude or topless for the respondents' newspaper and subjected to inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the claims lacked common issues, as determining liability would require individual assessments of each proposed class member's circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions made by a coroner presiding over an inquest into a death following a chiropractic neck adjustment.

The coroner had ruled that he lacked authority to remove the family's counsel for professional misconduct and declined to state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Coroners Act does not grant coroners the power to disqualify lawyers for unprofessional conduct, which is a matter for the Law Society.

The Court also found no error in the coroner's exercise of discretion regarding the contempt reference.