ODC 2007

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissing her claim for compensation related to alleged physical and sexual abuse by family members.

The Divisional Court held that the Board, comprised of lay persons, provided adequate reasons and made no clear error in law in finding insufficient corroborative evidence to prove the allegations.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision that struck portions of their statement of claim for injurious affection and refused to order the production of certain settlement agreements and reports.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by requiring an application under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a condition precedent for production, as the Act does not limit information otherwise available in litigation.

The court upheld the striking of the pleadings due to fundamental flaws but granted the appellants leave to amend their statement of claim to properly plead injurious affection.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that imposed two conditions on a grievor's reinstatement without allowing the parties to make submissions on those conditions.

The Divisional Court found a lack of procedural fairness, as the parties were denied a proper opportunity to be heard.

The court quashed the two conditions and remitted the matter to the arbitrator for reconsideration following submissions by counsel.

Seven generic drug manufacturers sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs to designate Apotex's product, Apo-Lisinopril, as a benefit under the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The applicants argued that Apotex could not meet the supply pre-condition at the time of its application due to a patent injunction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Executive Officer correctly interpreted the regulations to require a prospective assessment of the manufacturer's capability to supply the product to meet anticipated demand, rather than requiring sufficient inventory on hand at the moment of application.

The applicants sought leave to bring an application for judicial review before a single judge of the Superior Court pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, arguing urgency.

The matter concerned the proposed designation of Apotex Inc.'s version of Lisinopril as a benefit under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act.

The respondent Minister opposed the application, arguing the urgency was self-created and economic loss was insufficient.

The court granted leave, finding the potential economic loss significant and the applicants' prior inaction not fatal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for unpaid rent and dismissing the appellant's counterclaim for damage to its goods.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the arrangement was a license rather than a lease, and found no palpable and overriding error in the dismissal of the counterclaim due to insufficient evidence of causation.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the respondent's damages from six months' rent to four months' rent to account for interference with the appellant's access and the improper inclusion of a notice period.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for leave to appeal, the applicant sought costs of $7,603.25 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the amount was excessive and suggested $2,850.

The court disallowed costs for the applicant's own time as he acted as the client, not counsel, but allowed fees for his counsel's preparation and attendance.

Costs were fixed at $3,150 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to refuse to investigate his human rights complaint.

The Commission had determined that the complaint was more appropriately dealt with under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Labour Relations Act, as the applicant had previously grieved his dismissal and reached a settlement through his union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable because the applicant had access to an arbitration procedure capable of adjudicating human rights issues and had already reached a settlement.

The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the defendants' appeal for delay, and the defendants brought a cross-motion to extend the time to perfect their appeal of a Master's order striking their pleadings.

The Master had previously struck the defendants' pleadings due to repeated failures to comply with timetables and court orders.

The Divisional Court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time, that the delay was excusable, or that the appeal had merit.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal for delay and dismissed the defendants' cross-motion for an extension of time.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his race discrimination complaint to a tribunal.

The Commission and Crown respondents brought motions to strike individual commissioners, employees, and Crown entities as parties, and to strike the applicant's affidavit.

The Divisional Court granted the motions, finding that only the Commission exercises a statutory power of decision, the Crown respondents had no role in the proceedings, and the applicant's affidavit contained inadmissible extrinsic evidence and argument not before the Commission.

The appellant wife appealed a decision dismissing her motion for judgment to enforce minutes of settlement.

The motions judge had found that the parties entered into a binding written settlement but directed a trial to determine whether there was a subsequent oral agreement to vary the terms.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in failing to enforce the binding written contract, especially since the husband had not brought a cross-motion regarding the alleged oral variation.

A concurring opinion noted that under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act, any agreement to amend a domestic contract must be in writing, rendering the alleged oral variation unenforceable.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decisions not to refer his racial discrimination complaint against his employer to the Human Rights Tribunal, and to uphold that decision upon reconsideration.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness during the investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission met the requirements of procedural fairness and that its decisions were not patently unreasonable.

The complainant alleged that a funeral home lost his late wife's diamond earrings.

The Complaints Committee of the Board of Funeral Services declined to refer the matter to discipline and stated it lacked jurisdiction to order compensation.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the funeral home to pay $4,800 in compensation.

The Registrar appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that neither the Complaints Committee nor the Tribunal had statutory authority under the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act to award monetary compensation to a complainant.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Tribunal of the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario.

The Appeal Tribunal had determined that the Competence Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make compensatory orders, an issue not raised by the parties, without giving the applicant an opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that the Appeal Tribunal breached the duty of fairness by deciding matters not before it without allowing the parties to respond.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a differently constituted panel for a new hearing.

Following a previous endorsement, the court received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs/respondents requested substantial indemnity costs, which were unchallenged by the defendants/applicants.

The court fixed costs of the motion payable to the plaintiffs in the amount of $10,173.00 all-inclusive.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek declaratory relief under Canadian or American law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision.

The court noted that issues regarding the applicability of US law to a cross-border declaration could be litigated later in a motion for summary judgment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding damages and costs arising from a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on damages, finding no error in the trial judge's calculation or refusal to award punitive damages.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the trial judge erred in denying costs under Rule 76.13(3) because the action included non-monetary claims and faced a substantial counterclaim, making the ordinary procedure appropriate.

The appellant was awarded trial costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenant a $10,000 rent abatement for harassment and interference with parking.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of harassment, noting the landlord's threats to report the tenant to social assistance.

However, the court found no evidence to support the finding of parking interference, as the tenant chose to park in an unassigned spot.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the rent abatement was reduced to $6,500.

The Toronto Star made a freedom of information request for data from two police firearms databases, SOURCE and FATE.

The Adjudicator ordered partial disclosure of the SOURCE database but denied access to the FATE database under the law enforcement intelligence exemption.

Both the Ministry and the Star sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision regarding the FATE database but quashed the order disclosing the SOURCE database, finding that the Adjudicator unreasonably interpreted the 'law enforcement matter' exemption.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal confirming the Superintendent's consent to merge two pension plans following a corporate amalgamation.

The appellant argued the merger and subsequent use of the actuarial surplus from one plan to fund contribution holidays for the merged plan constituted a revocation of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and correct.

The court held that the plan documents permitted the merger and that using actuarial surplus to fund contribution holidays while a plan is ongoing does not constitute a revocation of trust.