N. Backhouse

The appellants appealed a Capital Markets Tribunal decision finding they committed securities fraud by selling cryptocurrency tokens falsely represented as backed by gold bullion and misappropriating investor funds.

On appeal, they argued the Tribunal erred by admitting compelled interview transcripts, finding the tokens were securities, denying an adjournment, and imposing unfit sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that compelled testimony is admissible in the same regulatory proceeding, the tokens met the test for an investment contract, and the Tribunal's factual findings and sanctions were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Governors to remove him from his position for adequate cause.

The removal followed findings that he engaged in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable student, hired another student with whom he had a sexual relationship without disclosing the conflict of interest, and used a dating website to flirt with an undergraduate student.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the hearing was procedurally fair and the decision to remove the applicant was reasonable, intelligible, and justified given the serious breach of trust and abuse of power.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had declined to consider the employer's late-filed notice under s. 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the union's estimate of the proposed bargaining unit size.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with the ongoing administrative certification process.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of WSIAT decisions granting breast cancer benefits to three communications dispatchers under the firefighter occupational disease presumption.

The WSIAT had ruled that evidence of the dispatchers' lack of exposure to fire suppression hazards could not be considered to rebut the presumption.

The Divisional Court found this interpretation unreasonable, as it contradicted the plain meaning of the statute and the binding WSIB policy, which allowed the presumption to be rebutted by evidence that employment was not a significant contributing factor.

The WSIAT decisions were quashed and the original WSIB decisions denying benefits were restored.