Michael R. Dambrot

The appellant appealed his sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for trafficking in cocaine and 10 months concurrent for possession of proceeds of crime, arguing the trial judge erred by over-emphasizing his role as a supplier and declining to impose a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors, noting the appellant's higher level of culpability as a supplier.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash a preliminary inquiry judge’s order discharging a young person charged in connection with a fatal shooting.

The application judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the circumstantial evidence and by assuming the trier of fact must accept or reject a witness’s evidence in its entirety.

The evidence, including the respondent’s actions in pursuing the victim and tripping him immediately before the shooting, was capable of supporting an inference that the respondent aided the principal offender with the requisite mens rea for murder.

The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to commit the respondent to trial for first degree murder.

The discharge was quashed and the matter remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge with a direction to order committal for trial.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action and permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include negligent design.

The class action concerned allegedly defective elevator sheave jammers that the defendants installed and later required replacement.

The defendants argued the motions judge misapplied the 'some basis in fact' test for certification by not weighing their evidence against the plaintiffs' evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting jurisprudence on the certification test and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision on either the certification or the pleading amendment.

The applicant sought to set aside a motion judge's decision quashing his application for judicial review of a sports arbitration award.

The applicant argued that the arbitration panel exercised public powers and a statutory power of decision, making it subject to judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitration was a private contractual matter and did not involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision, meaning declaratory relief under the Judicial Review Procedure Act was unavailable.

The defendants in an oppression action brought a motion to vary an order of a Superior Court judge who had dismissed their motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The moving party relied on s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the motion for want of jurisdiction, holding that s. 21(5) only permits a panel to vary a decision of a judge who has heard a motion in the Divisional Court, not a Superior Court judge acting in a gatekeeper capacity for leave to appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring the 2010 municipal elections for Ward 9 City Councillor and Ward 4 TDSB Trustee invalid due to election officials failing to sign Voters List Change Request Forms.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the failure to sign the forms was an irregularity, it did not affect the result of the elections because the vast majority of the voters had signed declarations confirming their eligibility to vote.

The Court held that the elections were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Municipal Elections Act and set aside the order for by-elections.

The appellant, a licensed funeral director, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) revoking her licence for professional misconduct.

During her internship to obtain an embalming licence, the appellant falsified six embalming reports and attempted to implicate her employees in the deception.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and holding that the LAT reasonably concluded that the appellant's continued dishonesty and lack of integrity necessitated licence revocation for the protection of the public.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's dismissal of her claim for statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to prove her conditions were caused by a 1993 motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator did not ignore evidence and reasonably drew adverse inferences from the applicant's failure to call witnesses regarding her pre-accident health.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision upholding the validity of a direction assigning the proceeding to the respondent law firm.

The appellant argued the direction was signed under duress and was superseded by a subsequent contingency agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and concluding that the appellant was merely attempting to re-litigate factual findings.

The appellant appealed an order terminating her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative.

She argued there was a lack of procedural fairness before the Board and that the motions judge erred by applying a standard of patent unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness and concluding that, despite misstating the standard of review, the motions judge had actually applied the correct reasonableness standard and properly found the Board's decision to be reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the revocation of its registration under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent breached principles of natural justice in its decision-making process regarding two specific properties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal explicitly and properly based its revocation decision on other warranty breaches without relying on the evidence concerning the two disputed properties.

The applicant, a graduate student, sought judicial review of a university decision to dismiss him for plagiarism, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to an unexplained delay of over 21 months in commencing the application and a further 9 months in perfecting it.

The Court also found no merit to the applicant's allegations of procedural unfairness, noting that the disciplinary process was conducted without undue delay and the applicant was afforded appropriate procedural rights.

The applicant employer sought judicial review to quash an arbitration award concerning a retiring employee's entitlement to vacation pay.

The employee retired in April after taking five weeks of his six-week annual vacation entitlement.

The employer argued that under the collective agreement, the vacation entitlement should be prorated to the time worked in the year of retirement, and sought recovery of the extra vacation pay.

The arbitrator found the collective agreement language clear and unambiguous, holding that proration only applied to unused earned vacation, and the employee owed no repayment.

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

The landlord appealed a decision denying her application to terminate a residential tenancy for her own use and the use of her children.

The initial application was denied because possession was sought for her children, not herself.

A subsequent application was denied on the basis of res judicata.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding res judicata inapplicable or subject to discretion, and incorporated the parties' Minutes of Settlement into the court order.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to stay a 16-day hearing before the Assessment Review Board pending an application for judicial review.

MPAC argued the Board improperly intervened by allowing the complainants to re-open their case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC failed to raise a serious argument that exceptional circumstances justified interlocutory judicial review before the administrative process concluded.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the scheduled hearing.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision that vacated an order for security for costs against two plaintiffs and reduced the quantum against a third in a solicitor's negligence action.

The court refused leave to appeal regarding the test of impecuniosity, as the issue of the plaintiffs' ability to borrow funds was not raised below.

However, the court granted leave to appeal regarding the quantification of security for costs, the reliance on inadequate evidence of financial needs, and the application of the victim's Bill of Rights, but only in respect of the third plaintiff.

The defendant in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its appeal from a Master's order.

The Master had refused to strike allegations in the Statement of Claim that the defendant had a practice or policy of terminating employees for just cause when none existed, to avoid providing notice or pay in lieu.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting lines of cases that remained good law following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., and no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision.

The appellant physician appealed a four-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The suspension resulted from the appellant's failure to maintain a narcotics log, which breached an undertaking he had provided to the College following previous disciplinary concerns regarding his prescribing practices.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the penalty was within the range of reasonable outcomes, emphasizing the importance of undertakings to the self-regulatory scheme and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing their appeal of a Master's decision to set aside a Registrar's dismissal of the action for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the appeal judge's decision, which properly deferred to the Master's findings.

The court also found no issue transcending the interest of the parties or conflicting lines of authority to justify granting leave.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the cancellation of their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates due to poor safety records.

The appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence of improved safety performance since the Tribunal's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision to cancel the certificates was reasonable given the appellants' high violation rates and past safety issues.

The Court declined to admit the fresh evidence, noting it either could have been obtained prior to the hearing or did not render the sanction manifestly unfit.