ODC 2006

The applicant sought judicial review of an Inquiry Officer's report under the Expropriations Act, alleging breaches of procedural fairness including the denial of an adjournment request.

The respondent challenged the Court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction because the Inquiry Officer's report is an important step affecting the property owner's interests.

However, the Court dismissed the application, finding the Inquiry Officer provided detailed reasons for denying the adjournment and did not breach the duty of procedural fairness during the hearing.

The appellants appealed a costs award of $610,700.85 granted to the respondents following a successful class action certification motion.

The appellants argued the award was excessive, failed to reflect reasonable expectations, and was inconsistent with prior certification motion costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion, applied the overriding principle of reasonableness, and appropriately reduced the respondents' claimed costs by 40 percent to account for duplication and overkill.

The court emphasized the high level of deference owed to a case-management judge in complex class proceedings.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had rescinded orders made by a local Medical Officer of Health that prohibited smoking in several hospitality businesses.

The Board found that the Medical Officer of Health exceeded his statutory authority under section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act by issuing blanket, unit-wide orders rather than site-specific ones.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review and awarding costs to the respondent businesses.

The Minister of Transportation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondent $1,110,348 for the expropriation of a portion of her land.

The Minister argued the Board erred by deducting development and delay costs from the 'after value' of the remaining land, contending the compensation should be lower.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly applied the 'before and after' valuation method and properly interpreted the Expropriations Act regarding market value and injurious affection.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a four-story parking garage from the commercial property class to the residential property class.

The parking garage was used exclusively by residents of adjacent condominium towers under long-term license agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property was 'used for residential purposes' within the meaning of section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98, as the ultimate use of the property was residential parking appurtenant to living accommodations, regardless of ownership.

The appellant physician sued the respondent newspapers for breach of confidence and conversion after they published photographs taken during a cosmetic surgery.

In the civil proceeding, the respondents sought production of documents relating to disciplinary proceedings before the College of Nurses and the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The motions judge ordered the documents included in the appellant's Affidavit of Documents.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, holding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 prohibits the use of College documents in civil proceedings, meaning they are not required to be disclosed in an Affidavit of Documents.

The appellant insured was receiving disability benefits following an automobile accident.

The respondent insurer suspended benefits after the appellant refused to attend an addiction treatment program recommended by an addiction expert who examined him under the insurance contract.

The appellant brought an application for a declaration that benefits could not be terminated, and the insurer successfully moved for an order for another medical examination by the same expert under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insured's appeal, holding that a medical examination conducted pursuant to an insurance contract prior to litigation does not pre-empt a defendant's prima facie right to a first medical examination under the rules of civil procedure.

The plaintiff was injured in a collision with a municipal employee on a public skating rink.

The plaintiff pleaded that the employee skated backwards into him, while the defendants pleaded that the employee stopped suddenly.

The trial judge found the employee negligent for stopping suddenly, but later set aside his own judgment because the plaintiff had not pleaded the sudden stop.

On appeal, the Divisional Court restored the original judgment, holding that the defendants were not prejudiced as they had raised the sudden stop in their own statement of defence.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his orthodontic practice.

The appellant raised several procedural and substantive grounds of appeal, including a reasonable apprehension of bias, issue estoppel arising from a prior undertaking, inappropriate use of expert evidence, non-disclosure, and the severity of the penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding no procedural unfairness, no error in the committee's evidentiary rulings, and that the remedial penalty was reasonable and necessary to protect the public.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Fire Safety Commission, which had held that an appeal from an Ontario Fire Marshal Delegate was moot because the work outlined in the inspection order had been completed.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission committed a legal error by failing to deal with the issues raised and by applying an incorrect legal view of mootness.

The Court also found the Fire Marshal Delegate's decision to rescind the original inspection order to be patently unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the original inspection order was altered and confirmed.

The respondent College sought costs following its successful defence of an appeal upholding the revocation of the appellant's dental license.

The appellant argued that the costs claimed were excessive and that the appeal raised novel issues of jurisdiction and natural justice.

The Divisional Court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent, fixing the amount at $26,000 plus disbursements, noting that costs should reflect a fair and reasonable amount rather than an exact measure of actual costs.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application, the respondents sought costs against the applicant's counsel, the African Legal Clinic (ACLC).

The respondents argued the ACLC was the real litigant and made extreme allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request, finding no evidence of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct by the ACLC.

The court also noted the matter raised novel issues of public importance, making a costs award inappropriate.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a municipal animal services official determining that his dog was a pit bull, was unsterilized, and posed a menace, thereby subjecting the dog to the requirements of the Animals for Research Act.

The applicant alleged bias, procedural unfairness, and disputed the breed determination.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, and concluded that the official's decision was reasonable given her expertise and the evidentiary record.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, dairy farmers, sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal confirming their violation of a milk marketing regulation and imposing penalties including quota and licence cancellations.

The applicants argued that an ongoing appeal stayed the regulation's operation.

The Divisional Court held that the stay did not suspend the validly enacted regulation and upheld the finding of liability.

However, the court found the penalty of licence cancellation and forced sale of remaining quota to be disproportionate and unjust, varying the penalty to only a partial cancellation of quota.

The appellant appealed the remedy decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a finding of employment discrimination.

The respondent cross-appealed the quantum of damages and the award of legal costs.

The appellant also brought a constitutional challenge arguing that s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, which allows costs to be awarded to respondents but not complainants, violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that economic interests are not protected under s. 7 and that complainants do not constitute an analogous group under s. 15(1).

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on lost income and interest but allowed the cross-appeal in part, reducing the general damages award from $35,000 to $25,000 because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to include $10,000 for legal costs under s. 41(1)(b).

The moving parties, several banks and a financial institution, sought leave to appeal a motions judge's refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims in conversion and preclusion.

The underlying action involved a fraudulent scheme where a customer forged endorsements on cheques and bank drafts, deposited them with the plaintiff collecting bank, and the moving parties subsequently reverse-cleared the instruments.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision that the conversion and preclusion claims raised genuine issues for trial, and noting the issues were of general importance to the banking industry.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to her insurance broker for an unpaid retained premium.

The appellant had cancelled a policy placed by the broker after finding significantly cheaper coverage through another broker.

She alleged the original broker was negligent in failing to investigate or advise her of the cheaper alternative.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding the broker's efforts to contact the alternative insurer.

Applying Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co., the court held the broker breached her stringent duty to provide information and advice.

The action for the unpaid premium was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation action by a Master.

The Master had dismissed the action due to the appellant's failure to execute unlimited medical authorizations, relying on the appellant's overall conduct in the action.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that interlocutory dismissal is a remedy of last resort and the appellant's conduct was not contumelious.

Furthermore, the Master erred by relying on grounds not specified in the responding party's notice of motion, contrary to Rule 37.06.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the Grievance Settlement Board to reopen her grievance file and set aside a settlement agreement she signed in 2001.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the applicant lacked standing before the Board, as only the union and employer are parties to the collective agreement.

Furthermore, the Court held it had no jurisdiction to quash the settlement, noting the applicant had already exhausted her remedies regarding the union's duty of fair representation before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a swimming pool construction contract.

The trial judge had awarded the respondents $6,400.87 but failed to provide adequate legal analysis or demonstrate the application of proper legal principles in his reasons.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for appellate review, as neither party could point to the legal path taken to reach the conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered pursuant to section 134(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.