ODC 2005

The mother appealed a trial judge's decision granting Crown wardship without access of her child to the Children's Aid Society.

The child was apprehended at birth due to concerns about the mother's cognitive delays and lack of parenting ability.

The mother argued she was not given adequate opportunity to learn to parent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the evidence, including psychological assessments, and correctly concluded that the mother lacked the ability to acquire and convert parenting information practically, even with assistance.

In an addendum regarding costs, the court considered the written submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the principle that costs must be reasonable and fair, the court fixed costs at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant company appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission which found that the company had waived solicitor-client privilege over certain legal opinions by providing them to its auditor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that statutory disclosure of privileged documents to an auditor constitutes a limited waiver for audit purposes only, not an absolute waiver.

Furthermore, the auditor's subsequent unauthorized disclosure of the documents to Commission staff did not waive the privilege, as the auditor lacked the authority to do so.

The respondent Commission brought a motion to quash a judicial review application filed by the applicants.

The applicants sought to review the Commission's refusal to enter into a settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Commission's discretion to enter into a settlement is not a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, as it does not affect legal rights or eligibility for benefits.

No costs were awarded due to miscommunications between the parties.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders dismissing its motion to decertify a wrongful dismissal class action and varying the process for adjudicating individual claims.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred in finding common issues and a workable plan, and in altering the application of Rule 49.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders and noting that the Class Proceedings Act provides broad discretion to manage individual issues.

The appellant moved to reinstate his appeal from the respondent's decision to revoke his professional licence.

The respondent opposed the reinstatement and, in the alternative, sought security for costs and the lifting of an automatic stay on a costs order.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal, finding that the appeal was not entirely without merit due to a potential reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the respondent's use of a former appellate judge as independent counsel.

The court also ordered the appellant to pay $50,000 in security for costs due to his conduct throughout the proceedings, but refused to lift the automatic stay on the costs order.

The applicant, a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court, sought judicial review of the senior regional judge's decision not to renew his appointment upon his turning 75 years old.

The applicant argued that age was an irrelevant factor since the Courts of Justice Act does not prescribe a mandatory retirement age for deputy judges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the senior regional judge was entitled to consider age and the need to provide experience to younger judges as relevant factors in her administrative discretion.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to decertify a wrongful dismissal class action and varying the process for adjudicating individual claims.

The class action involved former employees terminated after mass store closures.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred in finding common issues and a workable plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders and noting that the Class Proceedings Act provides adequate mechanisms to handle individual issues.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders.

He argued that a committee member's prior involvement with a Quality Assurance Committee created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the committee erred in refusing to qualify his proposed expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the bias claim but found the committee erred in refusing to qualify the expert witness.

The findings of misconduct that depended on expert testimony were quashed, and the penalty and costs were set aside and remitted to a newly constituted panel.

The successful responding party on a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court sought partial indemnity costs of $12,400.

The court found the requested fees disproportionate for a simple leave application in a family law dispute, noting that the attendance of two senior counsel was unnecessary.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 for fees and $568 for disbursements, plus GST.

The Minister of Finance appealed a decision discharging a tax assessment against a vendor operating 25-cent single-coin vending machines.

The vendor argued it was impossible to collect and remit retail sales tax because the machines could not accept more than 25 cents or give change.

The Divisional Court held that compliance was possible if the vendor had applied for and used tax-included pricing under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

However, because the vendor was not actually using tax-included pricing during the relevant period, the Minister was not entitled to issue the assessment under section 18(3) of the Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to vary the judgment below, but otherwise dismissed.

Following the refusal of leave to appeal, the responding party sought costs of $10,746.01 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving party argued for no costs, claiming the matter involved public importance, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs of $7,385.14.

The court found costs were warranted but not on a substantial indemnity scale.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court awarded the responding party costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants, a group of dairy farmers who export their milk, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Minister had rescinded a Tribunal order that would have allowed the applicants to export milk without holding provincial quota.

The applicants challenged the Minister's decision on administrative law grounds, including bias and inadequate reasons, and argued that the provincial milk marketing scheme was an ultra vires attempt to regulate international trade.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the provincial scheme was a valid regulation of intraprovincial trade that only incidentally affected exports, and that the Minister's decision was not patently unreasonable, biased, or procedurally unfair.

The mother moved to vary a child support order to increase support for two children, one of whom was a permanent Crown ward due to severe developmental disorders.

The motions judge found the child was still a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act and ordered increased support.

The father appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a permanent Crown ward is no longer in the charge of the parents and therefore does not qualify as a 'child of the marriage' for support purposes.

The appellant client appealed a decision dismissing his appeal from an Assessment Officer's report that upheld a solicitor's account.

The client disputed the terms of the retainer, alleging an oral agreement that limited fees if the firm did not take his case, while the solicitor relied on a written retainer for a legal opinion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Assessment Officer's decision, holding that an assessment officer lacks jurisdiction to resolve a bona fide dispute over the existence or terms of a retainer.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissing his application against the landlord for harassment and coercion.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application on a non-suit motion by the landlord's agent, finding the tenant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the tenant was denied procedural fairness and natural justice because he was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the non-suit motion or call his remaining witnesses.

The Court also found the Tribunal Member misapprehended the evidence regarding intimidation and failed to control the abusive conduct of the landlord's agent.

The Tribunal's order was quashed and a new hearing directed.

The applicant brought a motion regarding refusals and undertakings arising from examinations in a judicial review application concerning the respondent's authority to enforce notice of licence cancellation.

The court reviewed transcripts and correspondence, ruling on obvious relevancy issues and leaving the remainder to the Divisional Court panel to determine, noting the competing views on the scope of the record.

The applicant sought to enforce an order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board requiring the respondents to produce certain documents.

The respondents failed to comply with the Board's order and subsequently failed to produce the documents after being given an extension by the Divisional Court.

The Court found all three respondents in contempt, fining each $5,000 and ordering them to pay $5,000 in costs jointly and severally.

A former student of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario sought judicial review of an Appeal Committee decision that overturned a publication ban on his name following a finding of professional misconduct.

The student had misappropriated $20,000 from a client.

The Discipline Committee had ordered a publication ban to aid his rehabilitation, but the Appeal Committee found this was an error in principle, as the conduct involved moral turpitude requiring general deterrence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, upholding the Appeal Committee's decision to publish the student's name.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which denied her request to designate her property as 'Farm Property Class' for reduced tax rates.

The Tribunal found she failed to meet the minimum gross farm income requirement and did not qualify for an exemption due to an unusual production year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding that the applicant's grounds of appeal raised factual issues rather than questions of law.