ODC 2004

The appellants sought to recover $15,380 in overpayments made to the respondent bookkeeper, who had increased his hourly rate from $20 to $30 following the death of the appellant's principal.

The trial judge found no agreement for the increase but denied restitutionary relief, citing the appellant's carelessness in paying the invoices.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law, as carelessness is irrelevant to the recovery of money paid under an honest mistake of fact.

The court ordered the return of the overpayment plus costs.

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of two orders by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of the total amounts paid by the Ministry for court-ordered legal representation of certain individuals in criminal proceedings.

The Ministry argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege and the protection of personal privacy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner was correct in determining that the aggregate fee amounts were neutral information not protected by solicitor-client privilege, and that the Commissioner's decision that the disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his discrimination complaint against a university to a board of inquiry.

He also sought $55 million in damages against the university.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable as it had investigated the complaint and based its decision on evidence of the applicant's academic and financial issues.

The court also held it lacks jurisdiction to award damages on an application for judicial review.

The successful appellants sought costs of their appeal and the application for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs to either party.

The court noted that both parties contributed to the jurisdictional error below, the appeal raised a novel and complex issue regarding the interplay between the Libel and Slander Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the appellants' conduct throughout the proceedings justified the case management judge's initial concerns about abuse of process.

The appellant, a former martial arts instructor, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $10,000 for breach of a non-competition agreement.

The appellant had signed an agreement prohibiting him from operating a competing school within a ten-mile radius for one year, but opened a competing business half a block away shortly after resigning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the restrictive covenant valid, supported by consideration, and reasonable in temporal and spatial scope.

The court also upheld the damage award, noting the respondent's proprietary interest in student relationships.

The College moved to schedule cross-examinations and a motion before a single judge to quash a physician's appeal of his license revocation, alleging he breached an order lifting a stay by continuing to practice.

The physician moved for an expedited appeal date.

The court declined to schedule the College's motion before a single judge, finding that lifting a stay does not constitute an order that can be breached under Rule 60.12, and directed that the motion to quash be heard by the full panel hearing the appeal.

The court scheduled the appeal and granted a sealing order for third-party medical records.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order requiring the payment of costs forthwith following the granting and continuance of an ex parte injunction against them.

The court granted leave to appeal, noting that recent changes to Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the unique nature of interlocutory injunctions warranted appellate consideration on how discretion should be exercised in awarding costs in such cases.

The appellant appealed an order of Master MacLeod, arguing procedural unfairness because the order was allegedly made without formal notice or supporting materials, precluding an explanation for its defaults.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the record disclosed full notice to the appellant and there was no palpable and overriding error or erroneous exercise of discretion by the Master.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissing his claim for compensation.

The Board had found the appellant to be a vague, evasive, and inconsistent witness, and was unable to establish whether a crime of violence occurred or whether the appellant injured himself due to intoxication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's credibility findings were determinative and that no error of law was demonstrated.

The Court emphasized that the Board's decisions should not be subjected to the same strict scrutiny as judicial reasons.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that health care aides dispatched to a hospital were not 'casual' employees under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had focused on 'the work' performed rather than the 'position', concluding the work was performed on a regular and continuing basis.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its home statute was not patently unreasonable.

The York Catholic District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision awarding Bernard Homes Ltd. and Crestvalley Homes Ltd. disturbance damages for lost builders' profits and solicitor-client costs following an expropriation.

The developers cross-appealed the OMB's dismissal of claims for lost developers' profits, reduction in land value, and lost executive time.

The Divisional Court allowed the School Board's appeal, setting aside the award for lost builders' profits and the solicitor-client costs order, finding that anticipated profits are not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The developers' cross-appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to amend her application record in a judicial review proceeding by replacing previously filed affidavits with new ones.

The respondents opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that no authority permits a party to withdraw and replace an affidavit without consent.

The court directed the applicant to file the proposed affidavits in a sealed package with a notice of motion seeking leave to file further affidavits, leaving the determination of their admissibility to the panel hearing the judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Complaints Committee's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against a former associate.

The complaints related to a business dispute, alleged theft, and patient solicitation, rather than patient care or professional competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the investigation adequate, the decision reasonable, and no evidence of bias on the part of the College or the Board.

A stated case was brought before the Divisional Court regarding whether a municipality's Property Negotiator/Appraiser had the authority to file assessment complaints without prior specific authorization from the Municipal Council.

The Court held that while the act of filing the complaint was purely administrative and authorized by by-law, the decision to pursue the appeal required authorization or ratification by Council within a reasonable time.

Because the Council's resolution attempted to delegate the decision-making power rather than ratify the administrative action, the Court found the process deficient and concluded there were no valid complaints before the Assessment Review Board.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the suspension of his hospital privileges until he completed a remedial anaesthetist review program.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when confronted with multiple complaints without prior notice.

The Divisional Court found that while the initial process was flawed, the hospital cured the defect by agreeing to an independent expert review.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the Court held the HPARB properly concluded there was a legitimate concern for patient safety warranting remedial action.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ministry of Transportation and the Consulting Engineers of Ontario sought judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of evaluation scores awarded to consulting engineering firms bidding on highway construction projects.

The applicants argued the scores were exempt under sections 13, 17, and 18 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Commissioner's interpretation and application of the exemptions were reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The moving party regulatory college sought to lift a stay of a Discipline Committee decision that revoked the responding party doctor's licence, or alternatively to dismiss his appeal.

The stay had been previously maintained on strict conditions, including cooperating with investigators and not selling drugs at a profit.

The court found that the doctor breached these conditions by making false statements to investigators, concealing his treatment of cancer patients, and failing to maintain proper charts.

Concluding that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public interest, the court lifted the stay but declined to dismiss the appeal, allowing the doctor to argue it on the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by an Arbitrator and the Director's Delegate, which found he was not injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule 1996.

The applicant, a taxicab driver, was struck on the head with a rock by an assailant while in his cab.

The Arbitrator found his injuries were caused solely by the assault and not by striking any part of the vehicle, thus failing the causation test for an 'accident'.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found the Tribunal's decisions were not only reasonable but correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of documents related to default hearings under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including solicitor-client privilege.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding sections 13, 14, and 18, but found the Commissioner erred in law by concluding that the documents, which were prepared by in-house counsel, lost their solicitor-client privilege once used as guidelines for general application.

The court held the documents were exempt from disclosure under section 19.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Toronto's appeal panel, which upheld a penalty of a zero grade for a course due to plagiarism.

The applicant argued that the penalty effectively prevented him from re-enrolling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no manifest unfairness or violation of natural justice.

The court noted that the appeal panel had considered fresh evidence regarding the applicant's academic record and reasonably concluded that the trial panel did not intend to impose a sanction that would necessarily permit re-enrollment if the student was otherwise ineligible.