ODC 2007

The moving parties (the Balsdons and their insurer) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to strike a crossclaim.

The crossclaim alleged that the insureds were vicariously liable for the actions of their insurer in negotiating a settlement with the plaintiff.

The court granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b), finding that the issues of whether an insured is vicariously liable for its insurer's actions and whether an insurer owes an independent common law duty to third parties are of significant importance to the insurance industry.

The appellant law firm sued the respondent lawyer for damages resulting from the respondent's breach of an undertaking to protect the appellant's account.

The trial judge found that the respondent breached the undertaking but dismissed the claim, finding the breach did not cause the appellant's loss, and awarded costs to the respondent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal on the merits, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's causation analysis.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, holding that the trial judge erred in principle by awarding costs to a solicitor who breached an undertaking, as such conduct reflects adversely on the administration of justice.

The trial costs order was reversed to no costs.

Following an unsuccessful appeal regarding a police complaint, the successful respondent officer sought costs of $18,201.50.

The appellant argued that he pursued the appeal in good faith, had limited financial means, and that a large costs award would deter citizens from advancing legitimate complaints against the police.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event but fixed the quantum at $4,000 all inclusive, considering the lack of complexity, the short hearing, the appellant's personal circumstances, and reasonable expectations.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a conditional sales contract for a car loan.

The central issue was the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court to admit hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court noted a potential conflict between section 27 of the Courts of Justice Act and section 2 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of hearsay.

As neither party addressed this issue in their factums, the court adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to amend their factums.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim and granting the defendants' counterclaim.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of the adequacy of the Deputy Judge's reasons, noting that neither party had addressed it.

The court adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to amend their factums to address whether the reasons met the minimum threshold for adequacy.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside an Assistant Registrar's order that struck out her proposed appeal of a judgment regarding her late mother's will for failing to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion.

The court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient sworn evidence explaining the delay, relying instead on an affidavit from a legal assistant based on information and belief, and unsworn representations from counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant had not met the prerequisites to be relieved from the operation of the Rules.

The appellant, having successfully reduced the trial damages award on appeal to an amount lower than its pre-appeal offer to settle, sought costs of $11,347.53.

The respondents argued for no costs due to divided success.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court rejected a purely mechanical calculation of hours and fixed costs at $5,000 plus disbursements and GST, finding this amount to be fair, reasonable, and within the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award upholding the dismissal of a bus driver who was involved in a fatal rear-end collision.

The driver had been acquitted of criminal negligence and dangerous driving charges.

The union argued that under the doctrine of abuse of process, the arbitration board erred by allowing the employer to relitigate facts decided in the criminal trial and by finding the driver grossly negligent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the abuse of process doctrine did not apply because the employer was not a party to the criminal proceedings.

The court further found that the arbitration board's conclusions regarding gross negligence, its decision to take a view of the accident scene, and its interpretation of the collective agreement were not patently unreasonable.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed partial indemnity costs up to the date of their settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court considered the proportionality of costs in small claims matters and the settlement offers made by both parties.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs but fixed costs at $4,000 all-inclusive in favour of the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission approving a reduced number of race days for two racetracks in 2007.

The applicant alleged a breach of procedural fairness and an error in denying it party status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, noting the applicant waited five months into the racing season to bring the application, which would cause substantial prejudice to the racetracks if the calendar were overturned.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a union grievance regarding teacher lunch breaks.

The school board had directed teachers to receive students in their classrooms five minutes before the start of afternoon classes, which the union argued violated the collective agreement's provision for a lunch period free of assigned tasks.

The arbitrator found that the school board had voluntarily fettered its discretion under O. Reg. 298 by agreeing to the collective agreement provision.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the regulation and collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

Following the dismissal of a judicial review application regarding environmental assessment bump-up requests, the successful respondents sought costs.

The Divisional Court found that the applicants brought the proceeding in bad faith to frustrate a land exchange, constituting an abuse of process.

Consequently, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The Minister of the Environment was awarded $302,000 in fees, and the Ontario Realty Corporation was awarded $400,000 in fees.

A request to award costs personally against the principal of the applicant corporations was dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding a secondary plan.

The proposed appeal challenged the OMB's findings that active parkland and developer-dedicated parklands are not permitted in 'protected countryside' areas under the Greenbelt Plan, and its approval of a municipal policy to acquire such lands at minimal or no cost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the OMB's determinations involved the interpretation of policy statements rather than questions of law, and were therefore not subject to appeal.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order continuing an interim Mareva injunction to trial.

The motions judge had applied the doctrine of abuse of process, finding no new evidence was presented since the initial interim order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the order under Rule 62.02(4), despite the motions judge's lack of detailed analysis.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Inquiry Officer's decision upholding the proposed expropriation of its property for highway construction.

The applicant argued the hearing should have been adjourned pending the completion of a municipal traffic study.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Inquiry Officer's refusal to adjourn was not demonstrably unfair and did not constitute a denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the salary level for laboratory technicians.

The hospital argued the arbitration board failed to consider the statutory requirements of s. 9(1.1) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the replication principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board explicitly stated it had considered the relevant factors and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission finding him liable for a strict liability drug offence involving a racehorse.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission failed to identify any evidence that the applicant's conduct fell below a reasonable standard of care.

The court noted that the Commission appeared to have improperly applied a standard of absolute liability rather than strict liability.

The appellant landlord appealed a Tribunal decision finding bad faith in an eviction for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's finding of bad faith and calculation of damages were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and therefore not reviewable.

The Court also found that the absence of transcripts did not prejudice the appellant, distinguishing the case from precedent as there were no allegations of bias or procedural unfairness.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office appealed an order requiring it to pay $801.01 in arrears to the respondent mother.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that in the absence of an identified overpayment by the payor, there was no basis for ordering the Family Responsibility Office to pay the arrears.

The lower court's order was set aside as ultra vires.

The appellant appealed a decision of Del Frate J. regarding the contents of the record for an appeal from the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that based on the parties' agreement and Practice Direction 6, the 17-volume record filed by the Director constituted the evidence at the hearing and must be included in the Tribunal's record for the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.