Michael R. Dambrot

The self-represented plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order staying their civil action pending the final disposition of related criminal proceedings against one of the plaintiffs.

The civil action alleged various torts and Charter breaches arising from wiretap authorizations that led to the criminal charges.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court noted that the fundamental issue in the civil claim—the lawfulness of the wiretap authorization—was identical to a key issue in the criminal case, making the circumstances exceptional enough to warrant a stay.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a competing union to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent construction company.

The Board had determined that the applicant's existing collective agreement did not cover carpenters and carpenters' apprentices, effectively ending the applicant's intervention in the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and correct based on the plain meaning of the agreement's recognition and jurisdiction clauses.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to disqualify the respondents' counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The conflict allegation arose after an associate lawyer, who previously worked at the law firm representing the moving parties, joined the law firm representing the respondents.

The court applied the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decision to satisfy Rule 62.02(4)(a) and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order or any matter of general importance to satisfy Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant telecommunications carriers appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) order approving an increase in the pole attachment rate charged by Hydro Ottawa.

The appellants argued the OEB breached procedural fairness and fettered its discretion by applying a 2005 methodology that the OEB acknowledged required review, and by refusing to hear evidence on a new methodology during the Hydro Ottawa hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB reasonably deferred the methodology issue to an ongoing province-wide policy review.

The Court held that the OEB, as master of its own procedure, afforded appropriate procedural fairness and its decisions regarding the rate adjustment and the final nature of the order were reasonable.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for the appointment of an investigator under the Business Corporations Act.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to determine if a prima facie case of oppressive conduct was established and by requiring them to prove oppression on the merits.

The court found the motion judge applied the correct test and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a consent order from the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him for non-payment of rent.

The tenant failed to set the appeal down for a hearing, evaded service, and did not appear at the scheduled hearing despite being notified.

The tenant claimed the landlord obtained the consent order by misrepresentation regarding municipal by-law violations and a desire to renovate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the tenant's arguments, noting he had not paid rent since April 2015, and ordered immediate vacant possession to the landlord.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a certification vote for part-time employees at Ontario community colleges.

The Board had to interpret the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 to determine which employees would be 'substantially effected' by the vote and whether the employee group was 'substantially representative' given the fluctuating workforce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and application of labour relations principles was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding a former employee damages for an unpaid bonus.

The employee had resigned before the bonus payout date, and the employer relied on a policy posted on its intranet requiring active employment at the time of payout to be eligible.

The trial judge found the policy was not sufficiently drawn to the employee's attention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the communication of the policy was insufficient.

The registered owners of a property fraudulently discharged a first mortgage held by Computershare and subsequently granted new mortgages to CIBC and Secure Capital.

The application judge found the CIBC mortgage was a 'fraudulent instrument' under the Land Titles Act and restored Computershare's priority.

The Divisional Court allowed CIBC's appeal, holding that because the owners were the registered owners of the fee simple when they granted the CIBC mortgage, they did not falsely hold themselves out as owners in the instrument.

Therefore, the CIBC mortgage was not a fraudulent instrument and was entitled to priority under the deferred indefeasibility scheme of the Land Titles Act.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was exempt from municipal taxes on certain railway lands under s. 315 of the Municipal Act.

The appellant argued the lands were leased to a third party for valuable consideration.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the agreements between the parties created a business relationship akin to a joint venture, not a lease, as they did not grant exclusive possession.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award regarding the reduction of hours for regular part-time nurses following a bed closure.

The arbitrator had found that while the hospital was not obliged to schedule part-time nurses to their committed hours if work was unavailable, failing to do so constituted a lay-off under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court held that these two findings were fundamentally inconsistent and led to an absurd result.

The court granted the application, setting aside the arbitration award as unreasonable, and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that upheld the employer's prorating of an employee's vacation entitlements due to an unpaid leave of absence.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it ignored the presumption that vacation entitlements based on service continue to accrue during authorized leaves absent clear language to the contrary in the collective agreement.

The application was allowed, the award set aside, and the matter remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicant, a 17-year-old with autism, sought judicial review of the respondent's decision denying him eligibility for government-funded Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) therapy.

The applicant alleged that the respondent lost medical records, failed to follow assessment guidelines, and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of lost records or procedural unfairness.

The court held that the respondent's clinical assessment was conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines and its conclusion that the applicant was not at the severe end of the autism spectrum was reasonable.

Although the application was technically moot due to changes in the government's autism funding policy, the court addressed the merits to dispose of the applicant's unfounded allegations against the respondent's staff.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissing his appeal of a police discipline hearing outcome.

The Commission had ruled the appeal was filed out of time because, although faxed and received on the final day of the 30-day limit, a statutory deeming provision deemed faxed documents received the following day.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the deeming provision created a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute one.

The provision is intended to protect the serving party, not to act as a trap to deprive them of a statutory right of appeal when actual receipt within the time limit is established.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Independent Police Review Director and the Chief of Police classifying an unjustified strip search by a police officer as misconduct 'not of a serious nature' under the Police Services Act.

The applicant argued that an unjustified strip search must always be classified as serious misconduct and that the failure to hold a disciplinary hearing breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Director and Chief have statutory discretion to assess the seriousness of misconduct based on the specific circumstances.

The court found the decisions were reasonable given the facts, including that the search was conducted privately, without touching, and in accordance with policy, and that no hearing was required once the misconduct was reasonably deemed not serious.

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after fatally shooting the victim in the chest during a dispute.

The court inferred the shooting was intentional for intimidation purposes but assumed the offender did not intend to hit the victim.

The court declined to revisit the constitutionality of the four-year mandatory minimum for manslaughter with a firearm.

Balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and strong family support, the court imposed a sentence of six years, reduced to three years less 15 days after credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant, a minority shareholder, appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing part of his oppression remedy claim as statute-barred.

The motions judge found the appellant was aware of the constituent elements of his claim regarding a corporate dilution transaction more than three years before commencing the action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion on discoverability, noting that a fresh and discrete act of oppression did not occur to extend the limitation period.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction for rent arrears.

By the time the appeal reached the Divisional Court, the tenant had paid the arrears in full, rendering the eviction order void and the appeal moot.

The sole issue before the court was the disposition of costs.

Although the court noted the landlord acted precipitously in seeking eviction, the landlord was legally entitled to do so.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home and the payment of child and spousal support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant did not have leave to appeal the support orders and acknowledged he could not purchase the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home.

The court advised that any change in circumstances should be addressed through a motion to change.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that their residential complex was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under section 5(a).

The Board had concluded the accommodation was occupied for a seasonal or temporary period within a resort vacation establishment.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the Board's application of the exemption, noting it correctly followed precedent regarding multi-season temporary occupancy.

The appeal was dismissed.