Neal J. Smitheman

The appellant appealed a decision declaring that the arbitration clause in its Alliance Agreement with the respondent did not require a party to file a notice of request to arbitrate with the Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Ontario to commence arbitration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in his interpretation of the arbitration clause.

The Court held that the standard of review for contractual interpretation in this case was correctness, and that the clear wording of the agreement required the arbitration to be conducted under the 'then-current rules' of the Institute, which mandated filing a notice with the Institute to commence proceedings.

The appellant licensee appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which found a breach of s. 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 for permitting drunkenness and suspended its licence for seven days.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by reserving its decision on a motion for non-suit and requiring the licensee to call evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was not required to entertain non-suit motions allegation by allegation without a complete election.

The court also held that a prima facie case of permitting drunkenness had been established based on the evidence.

The appellants, a First Nation and its leaders, engaged in a peaceful protest and blockade to prevent a private mining company from conducting exploratory drilling on lands subject to an ongoing aboriginal land claim.

They were found in civil contempt for violating interim and interlocutory injunctions and were sentenced to six months' imprisonment and substantial fines.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the custodial and monetary sentences, holding that they were excessively harsh and that the sentencing principles from R. v. Gladue apply to aboriginal persons facing civil contempt proceedings.

The appellants, a First Nation and six individuals, appealed their six-month sentences for contempt of a court order.

The respondent did not oppose the appeal, conceding that the appellants had spent enough time in jail and that the underlying dispute required negotiation.

The Court of Appeal accepted the respondent's position and allowed the appeal, ordering the release of the appellants.

The City of Toronto appealed a declaration that its 2004 Amending By-Law, which prohibited commercial parking lots from issuing private parking tickets for unauthorized parking, did not apply to Imperial Parking Canada Corporation (Impark).

Impark argued that its signage created a contract whereby it consented to parking even if proper advance payment was not made, subject to a higher daily rate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that Impark's signs explicitly offered consensual parking, meaning the by-law, which only applied to vehicles parked without consent, did not apply to Impark's fee collection activities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was acquitted of operating a heavy diesel-fuelled motor vehicle that contravened emission standards under O. Reg. 361/98.

The justice of the peace acquitted the respondent because the Crown had not proved the Drive Clean Guide, which was incorporated by reference into the regulation.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 5(4) of the Regulations Act, the justice of the peace was required to take judicial notice of the regulation and the Guide incorporated within it.

The acquittal was set aside and a conviction entered.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for wrongfully dismissing the respondent employee.

The employer argued that the trial judge interfered in the conduct of the trial to such an extent that the image of judicial impartiality was destroyed.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge unduly intervened by redirecting lines of questioning, extensively cross-examining the employer's witnesses, and requiring the production of a policy manual that was not part of the pleadings.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

Cross-appeals arose from a sixth municipal prosecution alleging campground zoning violations involving camp lots located too close to a residential zone boundary.

The defendants sought reinstatement of a stay for abuse of process based on repeated prosecutions and prejudice, while the prosecutor sought restoration of convictions entered after the justice of the peace had already stayed the charges.

The court held the defendants had not met the stringent "clearest of cases" standard for a stay under s. 7 of the Charter, particularly in the context of ongoing regulatory land-use offences.

It further held that the convictions could not be restored because the justice of the peace required the defence of legal non-conforming use to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt instead of on a balance of probabilities.

Both appeals were dismissed and the order for a new trial was affirmed.