ODC 2004

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a costs order made after a summary judgment motion.

The motions judge had found the defendants' summary judgment motion reasonable but unsuccessful, and reserved costs to the trial judge.

The plaintiff argued this conflicted with case law requiring costs to be fixed on a partial indemnity basis and payable forthwith under Rule 20.06(1).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, as the cited cases merely reflected the exercise of judicial discretion regarding costs.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee decision that found the respondent chiropractor did not commit professional misconduct regarding allegations of sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee's majority decision unreasonable due to cumulative errors in assessing the complainant's credibility, reliance on stereotypes about sexual assault victims, and failure to consider relevant confirmatory evidence.

The matter was remitted for a rehearing before a new panel.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which found that the respondent chiropractor did not commit acts of professional misconduct relating to allegations of sexual abuse.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had dismissed the allegations based on credibility findings, preferring the respondent's evidence over the complainant's due to inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Divisional Court found that the Discipline Committee's decision was reasonable and did not rely on improper stereotypes, emphasizing the deference owed to specialized tribunals on findings of fact and credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, chartered accountants charged with professional misconduct, brought a motion for review of an order dismissing their request to compel the respondent's Professional Conduct Committee to file a record of proceedings under section 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the committee's power to investigate and charge is not a 'statutory power of decision' as defined in the Act, and therefore section 10 does not apply.

Following the disposition of several appeals, the court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful municipal parties.

The court applied the criteria under Rule 57.01, considering the complexity of the proceedings and the amounts at stake.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to the City of Mississauga, the City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, and Peel Region, with some reductions made to the amounts claimed to ensure they were fair and reasonable.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services that set aside a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct against a police officer.

The officer had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman while off-duty in the Dominican Republic.

The Hearing Officer found the complainant credible and ordered the officer dismissed.

The Commission overturned this decision, finding the complainant's evidence incredible.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Commission failed to apply the correct standard of review (reasonableness) and improperly substituted its own credibility findings for those of the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer's decision and penalty of dismissal were restored.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission granting the respondent a liquor delivery service licence.

The respondent had failed to disclose recent criminal convictions on his application.

The Board found that the respondent made a false statement but granted the licence anyway, citing personal hardships and relying on evidence it had otherwise deemed not credible.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 6(2)(e) and s. 10(2) of the Liquor Licence Act, the Board has no discretion to grant a licence once it finds an applicant made a false statement.

The Court also found the Board erred by considering irrelevant factors and rejected evidence.

The Registrar was ordered to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence.

The applicants sought judicial review of the government's alleged failure to allocate adequate resources to fund treatment for autistic children, raising both administrative and constitutional arguments under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the constitutional arguments on a piecemeal basis, noting that a fuller record was being developed in related litigation (Wynberg and Deskin).

The court adjourned the constitutional issues pending the outcome of those cases and proceeded to hear only the administrative law issues.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the validity of a collective agreement under section 53.

The applicant argued the Board was required to declare the agreement invalid for all purposes, not just for the two certification applications before it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had jurisdiction to restrict its remedy to the applications before it and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful application against the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which had cancelled its contract with the applicant charitable organization and seized its property without authority.

The Divisional Court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the government's unfair treatment of the applicant and the complexity of the proceedings.

Costs were fixed at $120,000 plus GST.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited and others for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, as well as the subsequent costs order.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed the claims to real property devaluation, abandoning health impairment claims.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the proposed class definition was arbitrary, individual issues would overwhelm common issues, and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court also upheld the costs award of $184,332.14 against the appellant, finding no error in the motion judge's application of costs principles under the Class Proceedings Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant restaurant association challenged the jurisdictional and constitutional validity of a City of Toronto by-law requiring restaurant operators to publicly post the results of food premises inspections (the 'DineSafe' Disclosure Program).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the city had the jurisdiction to pass the by-law under the Municipal Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The court also rejected the applicant's Charter challenges, holding that a corporation cannot invoke section 7, and that the mandatory posting of inspection notices did not infringe freedom of expression under section 2(b) because it did not force the owners to adopt the city's message or prevent them from disavowing it.

The court further held that even if section 2(b) were infringed, the by-law would be saved under section 1.

The applicant, a residents' association, sought judicial review of decisions by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Realty Corporation relating to the sale of a former psychiatric hospital cemetery to a private purchaser who intended to build a crematorium.

The applicant argued that the MOE Director erred in issuing an air approval without considering fine particulate emissions and that the ORC failed to conduct a proper environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's decision was not patently unreasonable given the lack of existing standards for fine particulates at the time, and that the ORC reasonably applied its Class Environmental Assessment, which did not require assessing the private purchaser's subsequent planning actions.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $3,745 in unpaid accounting fees to the respondent.

The dispute centered on the scope of the respondent's retainer and whether he was authorized to investigate a tax issue discovered during his review of reorganization documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly accepted the respondent's evidence regarding the scope of the professional retainer and that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that prevented it from unilaterally disbanding its full-time fire department and terminating the firefighters' employment.

The municipality had passed a by-law to replace the full-time department with volunteers, arguing it had the authority to terminate the expired collective agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the collective agreement remained in effect due to its specific terms and the statutory freeze provisions under the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Act.

The court confirmed the municipality did not have the unilateral right to annul the collective agreement or bypass the statutory collective bargaining regime.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to bifurcate a personal injury trial where a jury notice was outstanding.

The motion judge found that there were conflicting decisions on whether bifurcation could be ordered in the face of an outstanding jury notice, specifically noting a conflict between the lower court's decision and Morniga v. State Farm.

Finding the issue to be of general importance to the personal injury bar and the administration of justice, the court granted leave to appeal.

The respondent brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to quash the applicant's appeal on the grounds of mootness and estoppel.

The underlying appeal concerned the applicant's standing to challenge the respondent's election to satisfy debenture obligations by issuing shares.

The single judge concluded that the issues raised on the motion to quash were intertwined with the merits of the appeal and potential prejudice to the parties.

Pursuant to section 21(4) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 61.16(2.1), the judge adjourned the motion to be heard by the full panel of the Divisional Court hearing the appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award concerning the interpretation of a collective agreement and an employee's status under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The court found the arbitrator's analysis of the collective agreement and the employee's status to be reasonable and dismissed the application with costs.

The appellant, who had been detained in a mental health facility for 23 years, appealed an order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The order was made by a judge on his own motion at a Call-Over Court immediately after removing the appellant's solicitor of record.

The appellant was not present and had no actual notice of the intention to make such an appointment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that there was no basis in law for the appointment and no evidence before the presiding judge concerning the factors required under the Rules.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding their claims for water leak repairs under a statutory warranty.

The court previously dismissed the appeal but issued this supplementary endorsement to address remaining issues regarding the interpretation of settlement releases, a side letter, and estoppel.

The court held that the releases constituted the entire agreement and that the side letter did not bind the warranty program.

Furthermore, the appellants were estopped from relying on the side letter against the program because the program had reasonably relied on the releases to its detriment by relinquishing security.

The appeal on the remaining issues was dismissed with costs.