Michael James Statham

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an urgent application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a cease and desist order regarding an unlawful strike by the Amalgamated Transit Union that shut down public transit.

The Board Chair held a teleconference hearing at 5:30 a.m. without the Union's participation, granting the order.

Later that day, a Vice-Chair reconsidered the decision, limiting each side's presentation time, and upheld the order.

The Union applied for judicial review, arguing a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion to abridge its procedures and that the urgent circumstances justified the expedited process and limited presentation time.

The appellant bank appealed a decision dismissing its motion to reappoint a trustee in bankruptcy and annulling a bankruptcy order, as well as the substantial indemnity costs awarded against it.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there were no unrealized or undistributed assets under s. 41(11) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, noting the bank failed to adduce evidence that certain appraisals would have altered property valuations.

The Court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs orders, finding the trial judge acted within his discretion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

The Minister of Revenue appealed a trial decision that allowed an automobile dealership to exclude its wholesale financial liabilities for new vehicles from its paid-up capital as 'current accounts payable' under the Corporations Tax Act.

The Minister also appealed the trial judge's award of solicitor and client costs to the dealership.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tax appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the legislation or assessment of expert accounting evidence.

However, the Court allowed the costs appeal, reducing the award to a party and party scale because there was no finding of reprehensible conduct by the Minister to justify solicitor and client costs.

The defendants in a libel action appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to compel production of documents and examination for discovery of a non-party investigator.

The investigator had been hired by the plaintiff employer to interview employees regarding the same allegations that formed the basis of the libel action.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the interview notes were relevant to the defendants' plea of justification and were not protected by privilege under the Wigmore criteria.

The court concluded it would be unfair to require the defendants to proceed to trial without discovery of the non-party.