Morgana Kellythorne

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) imposed a condition on Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited (THESL) requiring approval from a majority of its independent directors before declaring future dividends to its affiliates, due to concerns over large dividend payouts amidst aging infrastructure.

The Divisional Court struck down this condition, finding the OEB exceeded its jurisdiction.

The OEB appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the OEB's broad rate-setting powers under the Ontario Energy Board Act included the jurisdiction to impose such a condition to protect ratepayers.

The Court found the OEB's decision was reasonable and did not improperly usurp corporate law principles, as it merely added a regulatory check to the directors' discretion.

The Crown appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing the Ministry of Transportation's award of a highway construction contract to the lowest bidder.

The second-lowest bidder had argued the winning bid was non-compliant because it declared no imported steel, despite design drawings specifying rolled steel beams unavailable in Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Ministry's investigation and subsequent conclusion that the winning bid was compliant—based on the bidder's intention to use Canadian welded steel that met structural standards—was reasonable.

The appellant posted $5,000 as security for costs for an appeal.

Because the appeal was allowed in part, the Court of Appeal amended its previous order to direct that the $5,000 security for costs be released and returned to the appellant.

The appellant appealed an order made by the Superior Court of Justice relating to discipline proceedings.

The respondents conceded that they never sought an order relating to proceedings other than the discipline proceedings and related matters.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, varying the order to include a notice requirement for proposed witnesses and striking out one paragraph, but otherwise upholding the order.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the appellant, to be set off against outstanding costs orders.

The applicant, a full member of the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, brought an application for judicial review to quash a by-law that reduced the number of examination sections required for full membership from five to three.

The applicant argued the by-law was unreasonable, created two categories of full members, and was contrary to the public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the enactment of the by-law was a legislative function not amenable to judicial review for reasonableness, the by-law was intra vires the Association's statutory powers, and the court should defer to the Association's expertise in setting professional standards.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision that held a perpetual right to renew a supply of 5000 horsepower of electricity at a preferential rate remained extant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appeal judge failed to give adequate weight to the fact that the original 1928 agreement lapsed in 1987 due to the respondent's failure to give the required renewal notice.

The Court held that subsequent agreements did not revive the perpetual renewal provision, but merely provided a preferential price for a fixed term.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding wrongful dismissal and awarding 22 months' notice, eight months' Wallace damages, and $25,000 in punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of no cause for termination and the 22-month notice period.

However, the Court reduced the Wallace damages to four months, finding the employer did not act in bad faith by pursuing unproven allegations of dishonesty, withholding a reference letter, or couriering the respondent's belongings.

The $25,000 punitive damages award was upheld due to the employer's oppressive conduct in blacklisting the respondent's relatives and unlawfully deducting funds from her account at another bank.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant moved to reinstate his appeal, which had been dismissed as abandoned for failure to post security for costs.

He explained his previous lack of funds, justified the delay, and demonstrated the appeal was not frivolous.

The respondents noted a Superior Court order staying all proceedings by the appellant without leave.

The Court of Appeal exercised its jurisdiction under s. 13(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to grant leave and ordered the appeal reinstated upon the posting of the required security.