M. Dale Parayeski

The plaintiff, the Ontario Securities Commission, moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the transfer of a Welland home from the defendants, a husband and wife, to the wife alone was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors.

The husband owed an outstanding fine to the plaintiff for breaches of the Securities Act.

The court found that the transfer was made for nominal consideration and with the acknowledged intent to protect the property from creditors.

The court granted summary judgment, declaring the conveyance fraudulent and void, and alternatively found that the husband retained an interest in the property via resulting and constructive trusts.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his complaints of discrimination and reprisal against the Middlesex-London Health Unit.

The complaints arose from a student practicum and a subsequent unsuccessful job application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions reasonable and rejecting the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, bias, and Charter violations.

The court held that the Tribunal properly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the legal tests for discrimination and reprisal.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Physician Payment Review Board which found that five claims submitted by a physician were not stale-dated.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board has jurisdiction to determine the true basis for a denial of claims, its finding that the claims were not denied under s. 18(3) of the Health Insurance Act was unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and a declaration was issued that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review decisions made under s. 18(3).

The appellant appealed from interim and final orders of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his request for compensation for an alleged assault and criminal conspiracy.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to issue summonses to three police officers and erred in assessing a police report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellant failed to show the officers had relevant or necessary evidence, and holding that the Board's assessment of the police report involved findings of fact outside the court's jurisdiction.

A preliminary request for a publication ban was also denied.

The appellant, a professional engineer, appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in vexatious communications with Ministry of Transportation engineers regarding bridge design, while dismissing allegations of incompetence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Committee's decisions on both liability and penalty were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appeal was dismissed, with a minor modification to the timeline for completing the Professional Practice Examination.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their request to review an eviction order.

Following the eviction order for the landlord's own use, the parties signed an agreement extending the move-out date.

The tenants argued this agreement, which allegedly included a $10,000 payment, created a new tenancy.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the agreement was a forbearance agreement under section 45(b)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act and did not create a new tenancy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award regarding contents and additional living expenses following a residential fire.

During the hearing, the respondent insurer conceded it would pay the contents award without requiring a release, and agreed the applicants could litigate the interpretation of the additional living expenses coverage in court without being bound by the umpire's nil appraisal.

Given these concessions, the Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

The applicant, a chartered accountant, sought judicial review of an Appeal Committee decision that revoked his licence for professional misconduct related to a tax minimization plan.

The applicant argued the Appeal Committee applied the wrong standard of review and impermissibly interfered with the Discipline Committee's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeal Committee correctly applied a reasonableness standard and did not overturn factual findings, but rather reasonably concluded that the applicant's reliance on a colleague's tacit approval of the plan did not excuse his misconduct.

The respondents were injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of their employment.

They elected to opt out of WSIA benefits to join a class action and subsequently applied for Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS).

After the class action was dismissed, the insurer terminated their SABS, arguing the election was invalid.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the election was made in good faith to pursue the class action, not primarily to claim SABS.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and reasonably concluded that the ultimate dismissal of the class action did not retroactively invalidate the good faith of the initial election.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaints against his former employer and union.

The complaints arose after the applicant's employment was terminated following allegations of sexual harassment, which was subsequently resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decisions were reasonable.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Energy Board decision requiring it to pay a $1,287,548 penalty to Union Gas for failing to meet contractual balancing requirements, with most of the penalty to be paid by shareholders due to a finding of imprudence.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal.

The Court found that the OEB had jurisdiction to impose a punitive penalty to maintain system integrity, properly grounded its decision in deterrence, and reasonably concluded the appellant's conduct was imprudent despite uncontradicted evidence.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court who had refused to extend the time to appeal.

The applicants argued the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact by finding no evidence was filed, but the panel noted the motion record contained no affidavits.

The court refused to admit fresh evidence, noting the self-represented applicant was a sophisticated litigant and the evidence could have been adduced earlier with due diligence.

The motion was dismissed as devoid of merit, and costs of $53,000 were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity scale.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision requiring them to pay the landlord for electricity arrears.

The landlord had installed suite metering and, when the tenants refused to pay the provider directly, averaged their usage and added it to their rent.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the tenancy agreements requiring tenants to pay for electricity were not void for uncertainty.

The court also agreed that the landlord was entitled to increase the rent for a prescribed service under the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the agreements did not violate provisions prohibiting contracting out of the Act.

The Applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, which declined to extend the time for service of a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing on two police officers beyond the six-month period under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached procedural fairness by not providing the Applicants with the officers' submissions or an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the Board's decision unreasonable for failing to consider the causes of delay holistically.

The Board's decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment making her twin children Crown wards without access.

She argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider section 57(5) of the Child and Family Services Act regarding the placement of Aboriginal children, given evidence of the family's self-identified Metis heritage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the children did not meet the statutory definition of 'Indian' or 'native person' under the Act, and a constitutional challenge would be required to expand the definition.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that placement with the maternal grandmother was not in the children's best interests.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her claim that her employer failed to reasonably accommodate her disability.

The HRTO had found that the employer attempted to accommodate the applicant, but she failed to participate in the cooperative accommodation process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicator made no error of law and reached a reasonable conclusion supported by the evidence.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision ordering him to pay $704 in unpaid wages to an employee.

On judicial review, the employer argued for the first time that he was not obliged to pay the employee because the employee lacked a valid work permit under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Divisional Court declined to hear this new constitutional and statutory argument, noting it was not raised before the arbitrator, the evidentiary record was inadequate, and no notice of a constitutional question was served.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's reasons regarding the unpaid wages were transparent, consistent, and reasonable.

The defendant employer appealed a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff employee eight months' pay in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge had found the termination clause in the employment contract invalid for violating the Employment Standards Act by excluding benefits during the notice period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the contract, his assessment of the plaintiff's mitigation efforts, or his costs award.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal seeking a longer notice period based on prior service with a predecessor employer was also dismissed.

The plaintiff sued the police and the Crown for injuries sustained when he was bitten by a police dog during his arrest.

The plaintiff had fled from a vehicle and hidden in tall grass, prompting the police to deploy a canine unit.

The dog located the plaintiff and bit him, following its 'bite and hold' training.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the police had reasonable grounds to use the dog and that the 'bite and hold' policy was not unreasonable.

The court assessed the plaintiff's general damages at $40,000 in the alternative.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action moved for an order nunc pro tunc to extend the deadlines set out in a previous consent timetable order.

The court applied the test for setting aside a Registrar's dismissal order, considering the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

Finding the plaintiff's explanations for missing multiple deadlines inadequate and not the result of inadvertence, the court dismissed the motion and directed the Registrar to dismiss the action for noncompliance.