ODC 2006

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner denying his request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to notes made by an independent investigator appointed by the City of Toronto.

The investigator had been retained to review the procurement process for the Union Station redevelopment.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the investigator was an independent contractor, not an employee or agent of the City.

Applying the correctness standard of review, the court concluded that the requested records were not in the custody or under the control of the City, and therefore were not subject to disclosure under the Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissing his privacy complaint without an investigation.

The applicant alleged his privacy rights were breached by references to him in a municipal report regarding the Union Station redevelopment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commissioner's role in privacy matters under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is advisory rather than adjudicative, and therefore the Commissioner has no statutory duty to investigate and decide such complaints.

The moving defendant, an assistant Crown Attorney, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion for summary judgment in a malicious prosecution action.

The plaintiff had been charged with murder, but the charges were withdrawn after new evidence surfaced implicating another individual.

The motion judge found that while reasonable and probable grounds existed initially, there were disputed facts regarding the reasonableness of continuing the prosecution after the new evidence emerged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflict of principle or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The tenant brought a motion to dismiss the landlord's appeal for delay, arguing the landlord failed to serve and file proof that the transcript of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal proceedings was ordered within the prescribed time.

The landlord had delayed the appeal for nearly two years and only recently ordered the transcript.

The Divisional Court balanced the interests of the parties, noted the substantial change in circumstances including the loss of the residence by fire and change of ownership, and found the landlord responsible for the excessive delay.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant father appealed a motion judge's decision varying child support, arguing the judge erred by refusing to impute income to the respondent mother, refusing to make the support increase and extraordinary expenses retroactive, and denying his claims regarding an educational fund.

The father also sought to introduce new evidence of the mother's income tax return.

The Divisional Court admitted the new evidence but found it would not have changed the motion judge's decision.

The court held that the motion judge made no error in fact or law and applied the correct standard of review, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellant owed considerable unremitted retail sales tax from a previous dealership and had failed to disclose a pending fraud charge on his application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no legal errors and its findings of fact were not clearly wrong.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the respondent in response to an application for an expedited hearing under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicant argued the affidavit was incomplete and misleading.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit addressed factual matters within the Registrar's knowledge and was not prejudicial, scandalous, or an abuse of process.

The court noted the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant or file a responding affidavit.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his negligence claim against his former law firm.

The law firm's secretary had negligently disclosed a private agreement of purchase and sale to a real estate agent, who subsequently obtained a $10,000 judgment against the appellant for unpaid commission.

The trial judge found the law firm negligent but dismissed the action because the appellant had not yet paid the judgment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appellant had suffered damages upon the filing of a writ of execution.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish causation; the real estate agent already knew of the private sale, and the appellant's damages arose from his own contractual obligation to pay the commission.

The applicants, licensed by the Ontario Racing Commission, faced a hearing regarding licence suspensions, disqualification of horses, redistribution of purses, and significant fines.

They brought an urgent application for judicial review before a single judge of the Divisional Court, arguing that the Commission failed to provide adequate pre-hearing disclosure, specifically witness statements or summaries.

The court held that in administrative cases involving the loss of livelihood, the standard of disclosure approaches the criminal standard, requiring summaries of anticipated evidence.

The court prohibited the Commission from commencing the hearing until 20 days after the required disclosure was made.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding them liable for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a latent defect in a property they sold to the respondent.

The trial judge found that the appellants recklessly answered a Disclosure Statement regarding basement leakage.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the basement leak was a latent defect and that the appellants' reckless answers constituted fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought an order of prohibition to prevent the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario from hearing a complaint referred to it by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint, and that the Tribunal was incorrect or unreasonable in deciding it had jurisdiction.

The complaint was dismissed, with detailed reasons to follow.

The applicant applied for an enhanced A-Z driver's licence and submitted a medical report that was equivocal regarding his alcohol use.

The Registrar demanded further medical information, which the applicant refused to provide, resulting in the suspension of his existing 'G' licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Registrar's requirement for additional information and subsequent licence suspension were not unreasonable.

The moving party, the biological father of a child made a Crown ward, brought a motion seeking leave to commence a new status review proceeding for the child so that the child's status could be decided alongside his sibling's.

The father argued the court had jurisdiction under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to grant leave despite s. 64(7) of the Child and Family Services Act, which prohibits a new status review within six months of the final disposition of an appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the broad jurisdiction under s. 134(2) cannot supplant specific statutory prohibitions.

The court also declined to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to override the legislation.

The motion to extend the time for perfecting the appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her solicitor negligence action as statute-barred.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action where the limitation period has clearly expired.

The court found the limitation period began to run when the solicitor ceased acting for the appellant and the damage was suffered, making the action out of time.

The court also found no evidence that the respondent waived the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside the dismissal of her appeal, which had been dismissed after she failed to attend a hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the tenant had done nothing for two months despite knowing the landlord was seeking a dismissal.

The tenant was ordered to vacate the property and pay fixed costs of $3,200.

Sears Holdings Corporation appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding its insider bid for Sears Canada Inc. The OSC had found that Holdings failed to comply with disclosure obligations, entered into agreements that contravened the Securities Act, and engaged in abusive and coercive conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for OSC decisions interpreting its constituting statute is reasonableness simpliciter, and that the OSC's findings and remedies were reasonable.

The applicant wife sought leave to appeal a costs order of $32,107.82 made against her following an unsuccessful motion for partition and sale of a family cottage.

The court reviewed the test for granting leave to appeal an interlocutory order under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the motions judge had correctly applied the proper principles in awarding costs and that the wife failed to demonstrate conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the wife's application for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision regarding the partition and sale of a jointly owned family cottage, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful husband.

The court applied the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, noting that the husband's claimed costs of over $16,000 for a leave to appeal motion were excessive.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale at $8,487.09.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that found he had illegally locked out the respondent tenants and failed to accommodate a tenant's disability.

The landlord argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal waived the 10-day notice requirement and refused his request for an adjournment to obtain police records.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment denied the landlord a meaningful opportunity to be heard and constituted a fundamental error in law.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The applicant physician sought a stay of a hospital board's decision to revoke his privileges pending an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The court held that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply to automatically stay the decision, as the hospital's by-laws requiring a hearing did not constitute a hearing 'required by law' under the Act.

However, the court granted a common law stay under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the applicant satisfied the RJR-MacDonald test for an interlocutory stay.