ODC 2006

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a costs order of $160,000 on a substantial indemnity scale following the dismissal of its injunction motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision to award substantial indemnity costs without clear findings of reprehensible conduct, and questioning the overall reasonableness of the quantum awarded for 500 hours of preparation over four days.

The applicant moved to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review for delay.

The applicant had filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union two years after his dismissal, which the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed for delay.

The applicant then delayed in serving his application for judicial review and adding the Board as a party.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test from Chiu and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to comply, he failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the justice of the case did not require an extension as the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a breach of contract for machining steel pieces.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in failing to award damages for a scrapped forging and in apportioning liability for extra honing based on the contract price between the parties rather than the reduced price negotiated with the customer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the first ground, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the damages evidence was insufficient.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part on the second ground, holding that the trial judge misapplied the law by not basing the apportionment on the appellant's loss of profits from its customer.

The respondent's cross-appeal on factual findings and costs was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a basement renovation dispute, alleging that the trial judge's comments and interventions created a reasonable apprehension of bias and that he failed to accommodate an appellant's hearing impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge appropriately accommodated the hearing impairment and that his interventions, when viewed in the context of a Small Claims Court trial involving self-represented litigants, did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering the return of a real estate deposit with interest to the respondent purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the deal was dead after the purchaser failed to give notice under a condition inserted for his sole benefit.

The court declined to accept a new affidavit as fresh evidence and awarded costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of the school board's decision to exclude a student from a regular class and require an assessment prior to determining placement.

The board offered a special education placement pending the assessment, which the litigation guardian refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's position was not unreasonable, and declined to order the deletion of the student's records.

The appellants appealed a Deputy Judge's decision finding them liable for the escape and subsequent death of the respondents' dog while in their care.

The Divisional Court found that while the Deputy Judge correctly identified the standard of care as that of a simple bailee, he erred by applying a higher standard in his specific findings.

The court held that the appellant veterinarian took adequate precautions by using two leashes, and the dog's unprecedented escape was not reasonably foreseeable.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry that allowed the Commission to hear evidence from alleged victims of historical sexual abuse.

The applicant argued that hearing such evidence would convert the inquiry into a substitute police investigation and exceed its mandate by requiring findings of civil or criminal responsibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner clearly understood his mandate to assess the institutional response rather than determine individual liability, and that he appropriately balanced the need for the evidence against the applicant's reputational interests.

The appellant, a resident of a co-operative housing corporation, was evicted for failing to perform mandatory volunteer work.

She had provided a doctor's note stating she was medically incapable of performing the work due to a mental disability, but refused to provide further medical details to the co-op board.

The Divisional Court allowed her appeal, holding that the court and the co-op board must apply the Ontario Human Rights Code when considering an eviction under the Co-Operative Corporations Act.

The court found that the co-op had a duty to accommodate the appellant's disability and that requiring her to divulge private medical information as a condition of maintaining her housing violated the Code.

The insured was involved in a motor vehicle accident and made a claim under her policy.

She commenced an action in Small Claims Court after the one-year limitation period had expired.

The Small Claims Court judge held that the insurer was estopped from relying on the limitation period because it failed to inform the insured and allegedly waived it through internal file notations.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that an insurer has no legal duty to advise an insured of a limitation period and that the test for promissory estoppel was not met.

Following an appeal regarding compensation for expropriated properties, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that success was equally divided between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the claimants, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion of the appeal.

However, the City of Toronto was substantially successful on the most time-consuming and financially significant issues against the claimants.

The court awarded the City costs fixed at $120,000.

Following a motion by the respondent to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review for delay, which was dismissed but resulted in a timetable being set, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the respondent's only success was in opposing an adjournment, while the applicant successfully defended the primary relief sought.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs of the motion.

The Gold defendants sought leave to appeal a case management judge's order that refused to permit them to file a factum, make arguments in support of their co-defendants' motion for summary judgment, or bring their own summary judgment motion.

The case management judge had found that the Gold defendants deliberately breached a timetable they had devised, engaging in delaying tactics.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the case management judge's exercise of discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the integrity of the case management process.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Energy Board granting leave to construct a natural gas pipeline to the proposed Greenfield Energy Centre.

The appellants argued the Board erred by limiting its public interest consideration to the pipeline itself, rather than considering the environmental and socio-economic effects of the generating station and the resulting closure of a coal-fired plant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly limited its jurisdiction to the specific project before it and correctly deferred to the Ministry of the Environment on the assessment of the plant.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $10,000 for breach of contract after the appellants failed to close a real estate transaction.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding the respondent mitigated its damages, in calculating the damages relative to the Small Claims Court monetary limit, and in awarding costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent's mitigation efforts reasonable, the damage calculation proper, and the costs award within the rules.

The Writers Guild of Canada brought an application for judicial review of a preliminary arbitration award.

The arbitrator had concluded he had jurisdiction to determine whether a grievor was an employee/dependent contractor or an independent contractor under the Status of the Artist Act.

The applicant argued the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over this issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator correctly interpreted the legislation and had jurisdiction to determine the grievor's employment status as a preliminary issue of arbitrability.

The applicant police officer, facing disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act, sought judicial review of a designated hearing officer's refusal to recuse himself for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant also sought to prohibit the Chief of Police from appointing a former police officer to preside over the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislative scheme allows for the appointment of retired police officers and that there was no evidence of institutional or personal bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner denying him access to certain government and police records related to his 1982 prosecution for fraud.

The applicant sought the records for use in a civil action for malicious prosecution.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Assistant Commissioners reasonably applied the statutory exemptions for advice to government and personal privacy under FIPPA and MFIPPA.

The court affirmed that the applicant's private interest in civil litigation did not constitute a compelling public interest sufficient to override the privacy exemptions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a school board decision upholding her son's limited expulsion for bringing a concealed knife to school and threatening another student.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the principal's inquiry and the board's appeal hearing were procedurally fair.

The court held that the board's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the expulsion did not violate the student's or parent's section 7 Charter rights.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which confirmed the dismissal of his complaint against a police officer.

The complaint arose from an incident where police responded to a landlord-tenant dispute involving the applicant, who is elderly and disabled.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission's conclusion—that there was no reasonable basis in the evidence to proceed to a hearing for police misconduct—was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.