ODC 2009

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking his appointment as an assistant bailiff for the City of Toronto.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's finding that the 2004 legislation created a new class of assistant bailiff with retrospective effect.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to require his parents to undergo capacity assessments and to allow him to examine his mother for discovery.

The underlying dispute involved the validity of powers of attorney executed by the mother, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease.

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

The court held that section 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, rather than section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, governed the request for a capacity assessment, and that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the assessments and discovery.

A police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) that dismissed his appeal from a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct.

The officer argued the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that OCCPS applied an incorrect legal test to determine when sufficient facts came to the Chief's attention, rendering its decision unreasonable.

The Court further held that the officer's guilty plea did not waive his right to appeal the jurisdictional defect, as consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a statutory tribunal.

The appellant owns a former cruise ship, the Jadran, which operates as a floating restaurant berthed in Lake Ontario.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessed the ship as a 'structure' and the lakebed it occupies as 'land' for taxation purposes.

The appellant appealed the application judge's decision upholding the assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions that the ship is a structure, that it occupies land owned by the Port Authority, and that the appellant is in possession of that land.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that denied its grievance regarding the interpretation of a contracting out provision in a collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to answer all questions or provide sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, consistent with his findings of fact, and sufficiently complete to allow for proper analysis.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the interpretation of 'temporary lay-off' under s. 56(2) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The union argued that the employer's lay-off of over 200 employees became a termination after 13 weeks, triggering mass termination notice requirements.

The arbitrator, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in London Machinery, held that s. 56(2)(c) applied as a stand-alone provision because the collective agreement provided recall rights, meaning the lay-off could extend up to 35 weeks without becoming a termination.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation was defensible and supported by binding precedent.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that allowed the respondent to convert a 161-unit affordable rental apartment building into a condominium.

The municipality argued the Board erred in its application of the Planning Act and disregarded provincial and municipal policies protecting rental housing.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's decision for failing to consider the specific city-wide housing policies and condominium conversion policies in the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 and the municipality's Official Plan.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for a defective driveway installation.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly bifurcated the trial and awarded an amount exceeding the claim.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in awarding judgment in excess of the amended claim of $4,381.65.

However, the court declined to order a re-hearing, finding the respondent had established liability and damages up to the claimed amount.

The appeal was allowed to reduce the judgment to $4,381.65.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to transfer their Small Claims Court action and the plaintiff's Small Claims Court action for unpaid wages into the Superior Court, and to consolidate them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The defendants had strategically commenced their claim in Small Claims Court and could still commence a new action in the Superior Court without prejudice, as no limitation period had expired.

The appellant brought a motion for a stay pending appeal.

The respondent, who resides in India and is unrepresented, requested to make submissions via video teleconferencing, but the court ordered the motion to proceed based on written submissions.

The court dismissed the request for a stay, noting the appellant had not complied with a previous order, and directed that the appeal be expedited subject to compliance.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to stay an Ontario multi-jurisdictional class action in favour of a similar Saskatchewan class action that had been certified earlier.

The defendants argued that the principles of comity and full faith and credit constitutionally required the Ontario court to defer to the Saskatchewan certification order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge was not bound to stay the proceeding, particularly given a prior Ontario carriage decision that found the plaintiffs' counsel in the Saskatchewan action unsuitable to represent a national class.

The court also found that permitting two overlapping multi-jurisdictional class actions to proceed did not constitute an abuse of process.

The appellant, a taxi driver who was the victim of a serious knife attack, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $20,000 for pain and suffering.

He had sought between $90,000 and $150,000, but the governing statute restricts the Board to a maximum lump sum award of $25,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and that the Board exercised its discretion appropriately.

The applicant, a taxi driver who was the victim of a serious knife attack, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board had awarded him $20,000 for pain and suffering, despite his request for $90,000 to $150,000, because the governing legislation restricts lump sum awards to a maximum of $25,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and no failure by the Board to exercise its discretion appropriately.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review to prohibit an adjudicator from continuing to hear a police discipline matter, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondents moved to quash the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the respondents were properly named.

On the merits, the Court reviewed several instances of the adjudicator's conduct, including remarks about wasted time, rulings on disclosure of counsel's notes, and comments regarding the timing of the recusal motion and the involvement of the Attorney General.

The Court concluded that, viewed contextually and cumulatively, the adjudicator's actions and remarks did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Ministry of the Attorney General sought judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner decisions ordering the disclosure of police records.

The Ministry argued the records were exempt under s. 19(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because copies of the records were contained in the Crown brief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that s. 19(b) does not exempt records in the possession of the police that were created during an investigation merely because copies later became part of the Crown brief.

Toronto Hydro appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim against a property owner for unpaid electricity bills incurred by unauthorized tenants.

The trial judge found the owner set up the account but held there was no implied term requiring him to pay, and that Toronto Hydro failed to mitigate its losses.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the statutory framework and the Distribution System Code embed Conditions of Service into all implied contracts for electricity, making the owner liable.

The court also found the trial judge erred on mitigation, as statutory provisions prevented the termination of vital services during the winter months.

Judgment was granted to Toronto Hydro for the full arrears.

The plaintiff appealed a Deputy Judge's decision dismissing his action after refusing to grant an adjournment on the first day of trial.

The plaintiff's counsel requested the adjournment to obtain newly discovered documents relating to the value of the damaged car, but failed to adequately explain the nature of the documents or why they were not produced earlier.

The Divisional Court found that while the Deputy Judge's decision was understandable given counsel's inadequate submissions, the interests of justice required granting the adjournment so the case could be resolved on its merits.

The appeal was allowed and the dismissal set aside, though the $1,000 costs award to the defendant for the trial attendance was upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

He argued the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test for 'substantial impairment' and erred by failing to consider new medical reports submitted after the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and properly weighed the evidence.

The Court also held the Tribunal did not err in excluding the new medical reports, as they did not clearly relate to the appellant's condition at the effective date of the Director's decision as required by the regulations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its appeal of a Master's decision.

The Master had ruled that the defendants did not require leave under Rule 48.04(1) to continue a refusals motion after serving a Trial Record, or alternatively, that leave should be granted.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the order and held that the Master's discretion in granting leave was unassailable.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its appeal of a Master's decision.

The Master had allowed the defendants to continue a refusals motion despite having served a Trial Record, finding that leave under Rule 48.04(1) was either unnecessary or should be granted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, holding that the Master's exercise of discretion to grant leave was unassailable and that the proposed appeal did not meet the threshold test under Rule 62.02(4).