Nancy J. Spies

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that determined wages for its firefighters.

The arbitration panel had adopted a blended approach, relying on both local police wages and freely bargained firefighter wages in a comparable municipality.

The applicant argued this approach breached procedural fairness as it was not advanced by either party and relied on unsubmitted jurisprudence, and that the award was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the blended approach was not novel, the parties had the opportunity to make submissions on the relevant comparators, and the resulting award fell within a reasonable range of outcomes.

The appellants appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decisions finding them liable for securities fraud and imposing severe sanctions, including lifetime trading bans, disgorgement, and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued that the presiding commissioner was biased, that their counsel at the hearing was incompetent and in a conflict of interest, and that the findings of fraud and the penalties were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, rejecting the fresh evidence regarding counsel's competence as it would not have affected the outcome, and concluding that the Commission's findings on fraud and sanctions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant tenants appealed three orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board authorizing an above-guideline rent increase for municipal taxes and charges.

The landlord had applied for the increase based on fees paid for a Rental Housing Licence and Electrical Safety Authority inspections required by a municipal by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions that the fees qualified as municipal charges and were not exempt were reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Board's determination that it lacked discretion to amortize the rent increase over a period longer than 12 months.

Although the tenants received inadequate notice and disclosure initially, the Court found this procedural unfairness was cured by the Board's subsequent review hearings.

The applicants, co-estate trustees, brought an application against the respondent, their brother and co-estate trustee, claiming a painting worth $30,000 was an asset of their late father's estate.

The respondent argued he had an oral agreement with his father before his death to keep the painting and pay the estate its appraised value.

The court reviewed extensive email correspondence and found corroborating evidence of the agreement.

The court dismissed the application, finding the painting was not an estate asset provided the respondent paid the $30,000, and noted the parties had spent nearly $500,000 in legal fees fighting over the painting.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a motion judge's dismissal of its motion to strike an application brought by a convicted offender seeking post-conviction disclosure of police records.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge's one-paragraph endorsement lacked sufficient reasons regarding the plain and obvious test, standing, and prematurity, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was granted, the decision quashed, and the matter remitted to a different judge of the Superior Court for a fresh hearing.

The applicants, two municipalities, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board that granted them party status but limited the evidence they could present regarding a proposed aggregate pit.

The Board restricted their evidence to the incremental impact of truck traffic on their roads, preventing them from comparing alternative haul routes.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decisions as the limitations effectively prevented the Board from considering mandatory statutory factors under the Aggregate Resources Act, thereby breaching the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The applicant moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought to quash an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding the respondent was an employee, not an independent contractor, and awarding unpaid wages.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test from Chiu and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to seek judicial review, it failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, considering the merits of the application and the prejudice to the respondent, the justice of the case did not require granting an extension.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving parties sought to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed their appeal of an interim order for payment out of court.

The single judge had quashed the appeal on the basis that the underlying order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.

The panel agreed that the underlying order, which directed an interim payment out of funds held in court pending the final determination of a shareholder dispute, did not finally dispose of the moving parties' rights and was therefore interlocutory.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) suspending his licence without a hearing.

The suspension followed criminal charges in Florida for indecent exposure.

The Divisional Court quashed the suspension, finding the ICRC's decision unreasonable because there was no evidence that the applicant's conduct was likely to expose his patients to harm, the ICRC improperly relied on a 1994 complaint, and it failed to provide reasons for rejecting uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence and the applicant's offer of a monitoring term.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding the individual appellant personally liable for a breach of contract regarding kitchen cabinetry work.

The trial judge had found that the contract was with the corporate appellant, but held the individual appellant personally liable because the corporate name was misspelled on the contract and the individual had claimed for the balance of the contract in his own name in a cross-claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by piercing the corporate veil without evidence of fraudulent or improper conduct, and by drawing an improper inference from the pleadings that contradicted his own factual findings.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario to disqualify them from a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process for a major infrastructure project.

The applicants were disqualified because they failed to include a required Accounting Firm Letter (AFL) in their submission.

The court held that the disqualification decision was not subject to judicial review as it was not an exercise of a statutory power of decision.

Even if it were reviewable, the court found that the respondents did not breach any duty of fairness and their decision to strictly enforce the RFQ requirements was reasonable.

The appellant father appealed an order denying his application for periodic or lump sum dependant support for his minor daughter from her deceased mother's estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The mother had left life insurance proceeds in a bare trust for the daughter.

The application judge found the father's budget included expenses not attributable to the child and ordered funds paid into court to be administered by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's consideration of the statutory factors, his assessment of the evidence, or his decision to utilize the Minor's Fund Program to manage the support payments.

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent summary judgment, which dismissed his motion to change a previous child support order.

The appellant argued the previous order did not comply with the Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the original judge was entitled to make an order based on Minutes of Settlement even if it deviated from the Guidelines, provided reasonable arrangements were made.

To vary the order, the appellant had to show a material change in circumstances, which he failed to do.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to serve and file a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment and other relief.

The Divisional Court determined that the underlying order was a final order, not interlocutory, and that the damages claimed exceeded the court's monetary jurisdiction.

Consequently, the proper route of appeal was to the Court of Appeal.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to appeal to the Court of Appeal, with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed its claim and struck its defence to the respondents' counterclaim due to the non-payment of a $600 interlocutory costs order.

The Deputy Judge had proceeded with an uncontested trial, granting default judgment to the respondents.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge erred in law by treating the striking of pleadings as a remedy of first resort and by denying the appellant the opportunity to cure the default when it offered to pay the costs in court.

The court also found a breach of procedural fairness as the appellant was denied the opportunity to make submissions on costs.

The orders were set aside and the matter remitted to a different Deputy Judge.

The appellants appealed an Assessment Officer's $1,000 costs award to the respondents following the discontinuance of an assessment action.

The appellants had discontinued the assessment to pursue a breach of trust claim in Small Claims Court regarding a retainer.

The Superior Court set aside the costs award, finding serious procedural unfairness because the appellants were ambushed with a Bill of Costs at the hearing, the Notice of Appointment was served out of time, and the costs claimed improperly included Small Claims Court attendances.

The appellants appealed a $1,000 costs award made by an Assessment Officer to the respondents following the discontinuance of an assessment action.

The appellants argued they were ambushed with a Bill of Costs at the hearing and that the respondents claimed costs for unrelated Small Claims Court attendances.

The Superior Court set aside the costs order, finding that the late service of the Bill of Costs and the inclusion of irrecoverable attendances resulted in a serious breach of procedural fairness and errors in principle.

The court declined to remit the matter for a rehearing, finding it would be an abuse of process.

The appellant brought a motion to perfect its appeal from a Small Claims Court decision without filing a certificate of judgment, to extend the time to perfect, and to file an amended notice of appeal.

The appellant argued that a certificate of judgment was required under Rule 61.10(1)(c) but was difficult to obtain.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the signed reasons for decision were sufficient to perfect the appeal, and allowed the amended notice of appeal.

No costs were awarded as the appellant could have been more diligent in obtaining the certificate or seeking advice from the Registrar.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider a previous order granting her a rent abatement and improperly proceeded in her absence due to a medical emergency.

On consent of the parties, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board committed a reversible error by failing to account for the prior abatement order.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing to be held concurrently with a new eviction application filed by the property's subsequent owner.

The applicant, a psychotherapist, brought a motion to stay the Registrar's decision revoking her certificate of registration pending her application for judicial review.

The Registrar had revoked the certificate without a hearing, finding the applicant failed to disclose prior complaints and relationships on her application.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and granted the stay, finding serious issues to be tried regarding procedural fairness, irreparable harm to the applicant's reputation and livelihood, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.