Molloy J.

The appellants appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's (OSC) decisions on the merits and sanctions regarding their conduct in the investment industry.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the OSC's decisions is reasonableness, except for procedural fairness.

The court found that the OSC reasonably excluded fresh evidence, reasonably upheld the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada's (IIROC) findings on the merits, and conducted a procedurally fair fresh sanctions hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Police Governing Authority granting an extension of time to serve a Notice of Hearing for disciplinary action.

The applicant was not given notice of the request for an extension and had no opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that this failure breached minimal requirements of procedural fairness, rendering the decision fundamentally flawed and justifying intervention despite the interlocutory nature of the ruling.

The court quashed the decision and ordered the applicant's salary to be paid for the period of his suspension.

The moving parties brought a motion to vary or set aside a decision of Swinton J., which had dismissed their motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

Swinton J. had dismissed the motion on the basis of res judicata, as Jennings J. had previously dismissed a motion seeking the same relief.

The Divisional Court agreed with Swinton J. that she was bound by the decision of Jennings J., and that the proper recourse was to appeal or move to vary the decision of Jennings J., rather than bringing another motion before a different judge.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a suspension.

The misconduct related to administering Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy to a mentally disabled patient without proper consent, which was found to be outside the scope of chiropractic practice.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by making findings on uncharged matters, failing to give adequate notice, and erring in its credibility assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had adequate notice through pre-hearing disclosure and that the Committee's credibility findings and penalty were reasonable.

The applicant witnessed a police officer use excessive force against a woman and filed a complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refused to deal with the complaint, finding the applicant was not 'directly affected' by the conduct.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and that the applicant, as a firsthand witness who was disturbed by the incident, was 'directly affected' within the meaning of the Act.

The application was granted and the complaint remitted to the Chief of Police.

The appellant appealed an order of a motion judge who held that costs ordered by the Court of Appeal, which did not specify a payment date, were payable at the conclusion of the litigation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in applying previous case law regarding interlocutory motions to a final disposition of an appeal.

The Court also noted that under Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the norm is now that costs are payable within 30 days unless otherwise ordered.