Norma Priday

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial list seven years after it had been struck.

The Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff seeking restoration under rule 48.11 bears the burden of showing both an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay and that the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

On the record, there was no satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay, and the respondent demonstrated actual prejudice arising from unavailable medical records, the destruction of discovery recordings, and faded witness memory.

Motions to adduce fresh evidence were also dismissed because the proposed evidence could not reasonably have affected the result.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission for being out of time.

The Tribunal found the applicant knew of the alleged discriminatory acts by 1994, despite his claim of discovering them in 2010, and thus the delay was not in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice in the Tribunal's use of a written hearing for a jurisdictional issue, and holding that the Tribunal's decisions on timeliness and reconsideration were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that denied him temporary disability benefits and found no permanent impairment from a workplace accident.

The applicant argued WSIAT erred by relying on a general medical discussion paper, failing to consult a medical advisor, and improperly weighing the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding WSIAT's decision was reasonable, supported by the applicant's own medical records showing pre-existing back pain, and that WSIAT, as an expert tribunal, was not required to consult a medical advisor.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's order requiring the insurer to pay the claimant approximately $4,350 for attendant care and housekeeping services.

The insurer argued the arbitrator erred by relying on an excerpt from a medical report and by judging the claimant's credibility solely on her demeanour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the excerpt was properly in evidence as part of a larger report filed by the insurer, and that the arbitrator reasonably weighed credibility in the context of the evidence as a whole.

The standard of review applied was reasonableness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate, who had revoked an Arbitrator's award of statutory accident benefits and ordered a new hearing on the basis of inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the adequacy of reasons is correctness.

The Court found that the Arbitrator's reasons were sufficiently thorough to explain her rejection of the insurer's medical expert and her acceptance of the applicant's evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Director's Delegate's decision was set aside, and the Arbitrator's decision was restored.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of s. 267(1) of the Railways Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's determination that maintenance is a necessary part of the operation of a subway system.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the respondent.