ODC 2004

The applicant, a lobbyist and lawyer, sought judicial review of a Commissioner's order in a public inquiry.

The Commissioner ordered that sealed boxes of the applicant's documents be reviewed by Commission counsel for relevance and potential solicitor-client privilege, with unresolved privilege claims to be determined by a Superior Court judge.

The applicant argued this procedure violated his Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the screening process minimally impaired solicitor-client privilege and that Commission counsel was not in an adversarial position.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying compensation for eviction-related moving expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction as the appeal did not raise a question of law under section 23 of the Compensation for Victims of Crimes Act.

Furthermore, the court held that the Board's factual finding that the expenses were unrelated to the subject incident was not patently unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

The appellants appealed a Case Management Master's decision granting summary judgment for $80,000 owing on a promissory note related to the purchase of a business.

The appellants argued that the individual signatories received no consideration and claimed a right of set-off due to a separate action for breach of a non-competition agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Master correctly found the individual defendants liable as guarantors and that equitable set-off is not available against a promissory note.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing his claim and allowing the respondent's counterclaim for $4,780.00 arising from a partnership dispute over a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on credibility and abandonment of the partnership, but found errors in the calculation of damages on the counterclaim, including amounts not yet paid and expenses incurred after the appellant was locked out.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the judgment on the counterclaim was reduced to $1,365.00.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee had imposed a one-year suspension, with seven months running concurrently with a prior employer suspension, and the remaining five months suspended on conditions.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Committee's decision not to revoke the teacher's certificate was reasonable.

The Court dismissed the appeal but varied the wording of the penalty to clarify the five-month conditional suspension.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent teacher.

The appellant appealed the Board's decision refusing to issue a liquor licence for its U-Brew business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable.

The Board properly interpreted the regulations in a broad, purposive manner in the interest of public safety and health, and was justified in refusing the licence under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act given the appellant's history of non-compliance.

The applicant school board sought an interim order under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to prohibit the Special Education Tribunal from proceeding with an appeal regarding a student's special education placement.

The student's mother, who was also a trustee of the school board, brought the appeal.

The school board argued the mother was in a conflict of interest and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order a placement not in the board's special education plan.

The Divisional Court found there were serious issues to be tried, that proceeding would cause irreparable harm by poisoning the atmosphere at the school board, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion for an interim order of prohibition was granted pending the outcome of the judicial review.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order to search and seize documents from the defendants' premises.

The order lacked a procedure for handling privileged documents.

During the search, electronic files containing privileged solicitor-client communications were seized and subsequently reviewed by the plaintiffs' counsel.

The defendants moved to disqualify the plaintiffs' solicitors.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, holding that the defendants had to prove pressing and substantial prejudice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held this was an error of law; where relevant privileged documents are reviewed by opposing counsel, prejudice is assumed.

The appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs' solicitors were disqualified.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Commission had declined the referral because the employer had made a reasonable settlement offer that matched what the applicant could expect at a hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission was correct to consider the settlement offer in exercising its gatekeeper function under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent on an appeal from the Small Claims Court brought a motion before a judge of the Divisional Court to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The appellant argued that the court lacked primary jurisdiction to hear the motion.

The court agreed, finding that under Rule 61.13(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss an appeal for delay must be brought before the Registrar of the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the matter to be set down before the Registrar on an expedited basis and awarded costs of the motion to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding fee estimates and time extensions for producing records.

The Divisional Court held that the decision was procedural in nature and fell squarely within the Commissioner's expertise.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the court found the decision was not irrational and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding whether a workplace injury caused her to suffer a traumatic brain injury.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to explain its rejection of unchallenged sworn evidence from a co-worker regarding a second blow to the head.

The Court quashed the Tribunal's decision as patently unreasonable and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to resolve the conflicting medical opinions.

The employer, Great Blue Heron Gaming Company, and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation brought motions to stay a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) pending judicial review.

The OLRB had determined that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applied to the employer's casino operations on the reserve, rejecting the First Nation's argument that its own Labour Code applied pursuant to aboriginal rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motions, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing collective bargaining to proceed for the 800 employees who had voted for union representation over a year prior.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer their complaints of discrimination based on handicap to a Board of Inquiry.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive full disclosure of the respondents' submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants received the same materials that were before the Commission and had a full opportunity to respond.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was within its discretion.

The respondent's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesman was revoked due to odometer tampering.

He later re-applied for registration, but the Registrar proposed to refuse the application based on his past misconduct, including criminal fraud convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal restored his registration, accepting his argument that the fraud was due to bad paperwork and a dishonest employee.

The Registrar appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred fundamentally by allowing the respondent to relitigate the essential element of criminal intent from his fraud convictions.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was restored.

The moving party, a defendant in a motor vehicle action, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that compelled the disclosure of any expert's report obtained from a joint vehicle inspection and required the parties to split outstanding storage costs.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal the disclosure order, finding good reason to doubt its correctness as it abrogated litigation privilege, which is a matter of public importance.

However, the court denied leave to appeal the storage costs order, characterizing it as a discretionary decision with no broader public importance.

The plaintiffs initially succeeded on a motion to bifurcate a class proceeding trial.

The defendants obtained leave to appeal that order.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs abandoned the appeal, proposing that no costs be awarded.

The defendants rejected this proposal and brought a motion to fix costs for the initial motion, the leave to appeal motion, the abandoned appeal, and the current motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, awarding them costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $17,971.75.

The appellant tenant appealed orders of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal concerning a residential property.

Prior to the appeal, the property was sold to a third party and the tenant relocated to a different property by agreement with the landlord.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal was moot because the tenant no longer inhabited the subject premises.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that denied it party status in a site plan appeal.

The moving party argued it was denied natural justice and that the Board applied the wrong test for standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the site plan process does not determine the rights of neighbouring property owners, and thus there was no denial of natural justice.

The Court also held that the Board properly exercised its discretion over its own procedure in determining that the municipality could adequately protect the public interest.

The applicant defendant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that revived the plaintiff's action, which had been dismissed five years prior due to the plaintiff's failure to attend trial.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motions judge's application of the test for dismissal for delay, rather than the test for setting aside a default judgment, was open to serious debate.

The court also found that clarifying the proper criteria for reviving moribund lawsuits was a matter of general public importance.