ODC 2005

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that interpreted a collective agreement's scope clause to include owner-operators in Cambridge, expanding the bargaining unit beyond the geographic parameters of the original Canada Labour Relations Board certificate.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was subject to a standard of patent unreasonableness, while her interpretation of the Canada Labour Code was subject to a standard of reasonableness.

The court held that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to recognize a bargaining unit expanded by mutual agreement and that her interpretation was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant resort appealed a Board decision suspending its liquor licence for seven days for allegedly serving an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Board's decision.

The Court found no evidence that the appellant's employees supplied liquor to the intoxicated patron, noting the drinks were ordered by another guest.

Furthermore, the Court held the Board failed to properly interpret 'permitted drunkenness', as the appellant's staff had taken reasonable steps to deny service and remove the patron shortly after her arrival.

The appellant tenant commenced an action for a declaration that its commercial lease was binding against the owners of the building.

The building was subsequently sold to the respondent, who was added as a defendant, and then sold again to a new owner.

The appellant negotiated a new lease with the new owner and brought a motion to dismiss the action with costs.

The respondent cross-moved to compel the appellant to discontinue the action and pay costs.

The Master granted the cross-motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that Rule 23.01 does not permit a court to compel a plaintiff to discontinue an action.

The court further held that the action became moot because the respondent sold the property, not because the appellant negotiated a new lease, and therefore each party should bear its own costs.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award dismissing a grievance for being filed outside the time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to provide reasons for rejecting a request to extend the time limit under the Canada Labour Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's failure to provide reasons on a subsidiary issue did not amount to a breach of natural justice or render the decision patently unreasonable, as the applicant had failed to adduce evidence justifying an extension.

The appellant mother sought leave to appeal a temporary care and custody order placing her child with the child's father.

The child had been removed from the mother's care by the Children's Aid Society due to concerns regarding her prescription drug use and mental health.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, and noting that the case was fact-driven and raised no broad issues of public importance.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her Statement of Claim based on information provided in a Demand for Particulars.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that statements made in judicial proceedings, including pleadings and particulars, are protected by absolute privilege, even if made falsely and maliciously.

The court also found that the plaintiff's claim for abuse of process lacked the essential element of an overt act distinct from the proceedings themselves.

The order granting leave to amend was set aside and the motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a master's decision regarding forum non conveniens.

The master had found that the contract underlying the claim was subject to Virginia law and the parties had agreed to Virginia courts for dispute resolution.

The Divisional Court held that the master did not err in law in addressing the test for 'carrying on business' in Ontario or in weighing the factors in favour of the defendant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendant doctor moved for leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions dismissing his motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.

The motions judge had allowed the plaintiff to file a late affidavit without complying with language requirements and had dismissed the summary judgment motion despite the plaintiff failing to file any expert medical report.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders and that the proposed appeal involved matters of importance, including the necessity of expert evidence in medical malpractice cases and the application of the limitation period.

The appellants brought an appeal of an order by Master Haberman to the Divisional Court.

The court determined that the Master's order was interlocutory and, pursuant to section 17(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, the appeal properly lies to the Superior Court of Justice, not the Divisional Court.

Costs for the appearance were fixed at $3,000, payable by the ultimate losing party on the appeal.

The tenants appealed a decision regarding their tenancy with Greenrock Investments Ltd. The Ontario Divisional Court issued an order on consent in the attached terms as amended, resolving the appeal.

The appellants, tenants of a mobile home park, appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The tenants sought punitive damages and a rebate for water testing charges invoiced by the landlord after the park's water supply became contaminated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal, as a statutory body, lacks jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The Court also found that section 115(5) of the Tenant Protection Act explicitly permits landlords to charge tenants for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for water testing, regardless of whether it is a mandated maintenance activity or if there is a contractual agreement.

The applicant, operator of the Highway 407 toll road, sought an order of mandamus compelling the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to refuse to validate or issue vehicle permits for individuals who failed to pay tolls.

The Registrar had refused to act, arguing that he had a duty to ensure the applicant complied with the statutory scheme and that individuals were not wrongly denied plate renewals.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Highway 407 Act imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to deny permits upon receiving notice of non-payment.

The court held that the Registrar has no discretion or oversight role to look behind the notices or compliance certificates, and declined to exercise its residual discretion to refuse mandamus.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission disqualifying a horse for a positive drug test and suspending and fining its trainer.

The trainer argued the positive test resulted from contamination or an unknown metabolic process of a permitted drug, and that the Commission applied an absolute liability standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's rejection of the contamination theory was not patently unreasonable and that the trainer breached the standard of care by failing to keep adequate medical records.

The court also rejected the argument that the tribunal Chair's questioning of the trainer was unfair.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision refusing to strike parts of the respondents' Statement of Claim.

The respondents claimed entitlement to increased annuities under a treaty.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and noting that complex constitutional issues should generally not be decided at the pleading stage.

The Attorney General of Canada sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed its motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim regarding post-confederation annuity payments under a rectified treaty.

The motion judge had refused to strike the pleadings, reasoning that complex constitutional cases involving treaty interpretation should not be decided at the pleadings stage without a complete factual record.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to allow the action to proceed to trial.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff claimed damages for his internment during the Second World War due to his Italian origin.

The court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, noting that prior to 1953, there was no common law cause of action in tort against the Crown, and the Crown Liability Act is not retrospective.

Leave to appeal was granted as the issues raised had implications beyond the plaintiff's interest.

The applicant sought to appeal or judicially review a family law arbitration award regarding spousal and child support in the Divisional Court.

The court held that the Arbitration Act provides a comprehensive code for reviewing arbitral decisions, precluding an application for judicial review to sidestep that regime.

Finding that the application to set aside the award under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act was brought in the wrong court, the Divisional Court exercised its discretion under s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to adjourn the matter to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant appealed an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal upholding the Director's decision to require audited financial statements as a condition for renewing children's residence licences.

The appellant argued the Director lacked statutory authority to use this information to set per diem rates.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of the statute and reasonable in concluding the information was not being sought for an unauthorized purpose.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral decision regarding a policy grievance on contracting out.

The arbitrator found that a worker provided by an agency was not an employee of the applicant, but nevertheless concluded by analogy that the worker could not work for the applicant for more than two weeks under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and effectively amended the collective agreement by creating a third class of worker.

The court held the decision was patently unreasonable as it conflicted with the express provision allowing contracting out.

The applicant mother moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her application for judicial review of an arbitration award for delay.

The arbitration award concerned custody and access to the parties' child following allegations of sexual abuse against the father.

The court noted that the applicant had also appealed a Superior Court order incorporating the arbitration award, and that appeal was scheduled to be heard by the Court of Appeal.

Finding that the issues raised in the judicial review would be expeditiously dealt with by the Court of Appeal, the court dismissed the motion to set aside the Registrar's order without prejudice to renew it after the Court of Appeal's decision.