ODC 2006

The applicant sought judicial review of an inquiry officer's report and a municipal resolution authorizing the expropriation of a portion of its land for a sewage easement.

The inquiry officer had concluded that the proposed expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary after considering alternatives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice or jurisdictional error of law in the inquiry officer's report.

The applicant sought to set aside or vary an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed its application for judicial review of an arbitration award administered by a voluntary dispute resolution corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, agreeing with the single judge that jurisdiction to set aside the arbitration award lies exclusively with the Superior Court of Justice under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

Furthermore, the court noted the motion was out of time under Rule 61.16(6) with no grounds justifying an extension.

The applicants sought judicial review to set aside a settlement reached by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in a subrogated action against the respondent.

The Board, acting as dominus litis, settled the action for $130,000 after considering an independent legal opinion and the applicants' position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decision to compromise the lawsuit was reasonable, dismissing the application.

The tenant appealed an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order terminating her tenancy and evicting her for impairing safety and causing property damage.

The tenant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly identified the legal obligations and that what constitutes reasonable accommodation is a question of fact, not law.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike, stay, or quash notices of application brought by three corporate taxpayers.

The responding parties raised preliminary objections that the order was final, not interlocutory, and that the motion for leave was out of time.

The Divisional Court held that the order was interlocutory because it dealt with procedure rather than substantive rights, and that the motion was timely because time ran from the date the order was settled.

On the merits, the court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision that a Rule 14 application was an appropriate procedure for determining taxpayers' rights based on statutory interpretation.

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.

The appellants, former employees and beneficiaries of a pension plan, appealed two decisions of the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the employer's handling of the plan.

The Divisional Court held that the employer was not permitted to pay plan administration expenses out of the trust fund, as such amendments constituted an invalid revocation of the trust.

However, the Court upheld the employer's right to take contribution holidays in the defined benefit plan.

The Court also ruled that the employer could not use surplus funds from the defined benefit plan to cross-subsidize its contributions to a newly created defined contribution plan, and that the employer failed to provide proper statutory notice of the plan conversion.

The Tribunal's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs out of the pension fund was upheld.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that offset their damages claim against the respondents' claim for unpaid wages, resulting in a net amount owed to the respondents.

The appellants argued the trial judge exhibited bias, improperly limited evidence, and decided the case on an unpleaded issue.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's refusal to award costs to two dismissed defendants.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no reviewable error in the accounting, and that the pleadings were broad enough to encompass the accounting conducted.

The appellant appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision that directed his retroactive disability benefits be paid to his ex-wife, who was the head of their 'benefit unit' prior to their separation.

The Divisional Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that the benefits were for the benefit unit as a whole while the parties cohabited.

However, the Court found that the Director should have exercised administrative powers to ensure both parties received an equal share, given they were separated when entitlement was determined.

The Director was ordered to pay the appellant one half of the retroactive benefits.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that their claims for work done in assembling and installing a massive truck frame assembly line at the respondent's plant were not lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The trial judge found that the assembly line was manufacturing equipment and not an 'improvement' to the land or building.

The Divisional Court majority upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in his application of the law to the facts.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the assembly line was an improvement given its size, cost, and degree of attachment to the premises.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Housing Rental Tribunal terminating his tenancy for the landlords' personal use.

The tenant alleged procedural fairness breaches, including the member's refusal to grant an adjournment and reasonable apprehension of bias.

Due to a mechanical malfunction, no transcript or tape recording of the tribunal proceedings was available.

The Divisional Court held that the absence of a record made it impossible to fairly assess the tenant's grounds of appeal, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The appeal was allowed, the tribunal's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different member.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order to sell a commercial property under the Partition Act.

The appellant claimed an oral agreement existed where the respondent relinquished her 50% interest in exchange for grocery store inventory.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred by not allowing a further affidavit and by not ordering a trial of an issue regarding ownership, as the doctrine of part performance might defeat the Statute of Frauds.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a trial of an issue was ordered.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of decisions by a FSCO arbitrator and Director's delegate finding that the respondent insured suffered a catastrophic impairment under s. 2(1.1)(e)(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted 'reasonable period of time' for a Glasgow Coma Scale score.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review is patent unreasonableness and the tribunal's decisions were supported by evidence and within its specialized jurisdiction.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing patients and engaging in boundary violations.

The Committee revoked his certificate of registration and ordered him to pay $30,000 in costs.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of similar fact evidence, the findings of liability, the penalty, and the costs award.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee properly admitted the similar fact evidence, reasonably assessed credibility, and imposed an appropriate penalty for grave and predatory sexual misconduct.

The plaintiff sued a doctor and an assessment company for bad faith, intentional interference with economic relations, and negligence arising from an independent medical examination report that led to the termination of her statutory accident benefits.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the report was protected by witness immunity and absolute privilege, and that they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the scope of the duty of care in the context of the statutory scheme and whether immunity applied to allegations of intentional injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the plaintiff's claims raised important policy issues and genuine issues of fact that required a full trial.

The Assessment Review Board stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's use of the income method to value duty free stores at international border crossings violated the Assessment Act by improperly considering the bridge or tunnel structure.

The applicants argued that revenue generated from customers using the bridges or tunnels should not be considered.

The Divisional Court held that the income method relies on the rental income specified in the lease and does not constitute a consideration of the bridge or tunnel structure itself.

The court answered the stated question in the negative.

Following a mandatory mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

A dispute arose over whether one of the defendants was a party to the settlement agreement in his personal capacity.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce the settlement and obtained an order compelling the mediator to testify about the mediation communications.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying the Wigmore conditions to find that the communications during the mediation were privileged and the mediator could not be compelled to testify, as the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the mediation process outweighed the interest in disclosure.

The applicant, a paramedic, sought judicial review of a Medical Director's decision to decertify her following complaints about patient care.

The Divisional Court found it had jurisdiction to review the decision because the Medical Director was exercising a statutory power and performing a public function.

However, the court dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, the decision was reasonable and supported by evidence, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant brought a motion to the Divisional Court to appeal a Master's decision striking out certain particulars of a negligence claim against the respondent.

The court determined that the Master's decision was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the proper appeal route was to a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice under s. 17(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also ruled that the appellant's counsel was not precluded from arguing the subsequent appeal despite having sworn an uncontested affidavit in the proceedings below.

Costs of the day were fixed at $3,000 to be borne by the ultimate losing party.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment regarding the division of net family property.

She argued the trial judge erred by excluding a $190,000 mortgage discharge from the husband's net family property and by limiting the unequal division of property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act to the difference in net family properties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the pleadings did not support the inclusion of the mortgage discharge, and affirming that s. 5(6) only empowers the court to order an unequal division of the difference in value of net family property, not to rearrange family assets.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on an appeal involving claims of false arrest and Charter breaches.

The proposed evidence included correspondence, expert reports, and training manuals.

The Divisional Court applied the Sengmueller test and found that the evidence was either not fresh, not relevant, or could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to trial.

The motion was dismissed, although the factum from the court below was accepted to show the arguments made due to a tape erasure.