ODC 2005

The applicant mother moved for leave to appeal an interim order granting custody of the parties' 11-year-old child to the respondent father.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by failing to maintain the status quo.

The Divisional Court found no error in principle, noting the motion judge properly considered the child's wishes and the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court held there was no conflicting decision and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award which held that the employer was obligated under the collective agreement to pay the newly introduced Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review, following recent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement to be logical and reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions declaring that the applicant was bound by a national collective agreement across all its operations, not just its Toronto district office.

The applicant argued the Board erred in its application of the common law of agency regarding ostensible authority and in its factual finding regarding the scope of the company name on the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision, which involved interpreting a collective agreement in a labour relations context, was subject to a patently unreasonable standard of review and met that standard.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the interpretation of property class regulations.

The moving party argued the ARB ignored the clear wording of the regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision, as the ARB properly applied a teleological approach to statutory interpretation consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

The appellant client appealed an order of a Superior Court judge dismissing his motion to set aside a certificate of costs in favour of his former solicitor.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the order appealed from was not an order 'for a single payment'.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110(1) of the Act.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenants a $2,000 rent abatement.

The tenants had sought the abatement on the basis that the landlord improperly cashed a rent cheque.

The hearings officer informed the tenants this was not a proper ground, but fashioned a new basis for the abatement on her own accord without giving the landlord notice.

The Divisional Court held this constituted a denial of natural justice, allowed the appeal, and quashed the Tribunal's orders.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, arguing that the lack of a complete recording of the hearing deprived him of natural justice and his right to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lack of a recording did not prevent the court from properly disposing of the appeal based on the tribunal's detailed findings of fact and reasons.

The court upheld the tribunal's findings that the landlord illegally entered the rental unit and substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating her tenancy and limiting her claim for interest on her rent deposit to one year.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying a one-year limitation period to the interest claim, finding the tenant was entitled to interest from the start of her tenancy in 1998.

However, the Court upheld the eviction order, finding the Tribunal's decision regarding unpaid rent was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant, a dentist facing professional misconduct allegations, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee denying his request for an adjournment.

The appellant sought the adjournment due to the unavailability of his expert witness and because the hearing could not be completed in the allotted time.

When the request was refused, the appellant's counsel withdrew, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee properly exercised its discretion in denying the adjournment and that there was no breach of natural justice, procedural fairness, or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles sought leave to file a factum exceeding the prescribed page limit by an additional ten pages, citing the complexity of the differing legal and factual conclusions.

The court reluctantly granted the request, expecting it might assist the panel.

Consequently, the court also granted the applicant leave to file a reply factum of up to 15 pages, leaving the issue of costs regarding the extended facta to the panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to proceed with the construction of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West, arguing it contravened the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court released a short endorsement granting the application and setting aside the City's decision to proceed with the project, with formal reasons to follow.

The court noted the urgency of the matter to avoid wasted construction costs.

The applicant sought costs for two applications for judicial review and a hearing before a college appeal committee.

The Divisional Court held it had no jurisdiction to award costs for the college committee hearing.

The court found the costs claimed for the judicial review applications to be excessive and denied certain disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $1,000 for the first abandoned application and $4,000 for the second application, for a total of $5,000 all inclusive.

The respondent, Hamilton Police Service, sought costs following an appeal, submitting a draft bill of costs for $26,224.33.

After reviewing the written submissions of counsel, the Divisional Court fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $10,000 plus disbursements of $263.37 and GST.

The appellant's estate appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying reimbursement for out-of-country medical treatment.

The appellant, suffering from advanced ovarian cancer, travelled to Germany for chemotherapy and experienced a perforated bowel requiring immediate surgery.

The Board found that the bowel perforation was not 'unexpected' given her underlying condition, and thus did not qualify as an insured service under the regulations.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding it was supported by medical evidence that the complication was predictable.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario granting the respondent an extension of time to appeal an arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had previously dismissed the respondent's claim for income replacement benefits as statute-barred.

The Director's Delegate extended the time to appeal because a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision raised a novel issue of broad significance regarding limitation periods.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Director's Delegate's discretionary decision to extend the time was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Arbitrations, which upheld an Arbitrator's dismissal of his claim for statutory accident benefits and ordered him to pay arbitration expenses.

The applicant claimed he was injured on a TTC bus, but initially reported it as a subway accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Arbitrator's factual findings and costs order were supported by the evidence and not patently unreasonable.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her personal injury claim following a slip and fall near a bus stop.

At trial, the judge accepted the evidence of a bus driver over the appellant's testimony regarding the cause of the fall.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his credibility findings and in limiting cross-examination of the bus driver on a 'will say' statement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice regarding the cross-examination.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which revoked his certificate of registration for sexual abuse and professional misconduct.

The appellant argued for a 'spousal exemption' to the sexual abuse provisions and claimed the legislation was applied retroactively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the concurrent doctor-patient and sexual relationships met the definition of sexual abuse, no spousal exemption existed, and the legislation was not applied retroactively.

The appellant, Chicken Farmers of Ontario, appealed the dismissal of its motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the respondents from producing and marketing chicken without a quota.

The respondents argued they were exempt from the provincial quota system because they exported all their chicken to the United States.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by treating the matter as a private law dispute and failing to recognize the public interest in enforcing the regulatory scheme.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the integrity of the supply management system, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him in contempt of court and imposing costs sanctions.

The Divisional Court raised a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction under s. 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear an appeal from a contempt order.

Noting confusion over whether the motion judge actually intended to make a contempt finding, the Court adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to seek clarification from the motion judge and to address potential leave to appeal requirements if the contempt finding is removed.