ODC 2009

The defendant tenant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to stay the plaintiff landlord's action for unpaid rent.

The tenant argued the dispute should be arbitrated pursuant to a shareholder agreement.

The court granted the extension of time but denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that the rent dispute arose solely under the lease, which contained no arbitration clause.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review regarding a lease renewal decision by The Niagara Parks Commission.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the application.

Before a decision was rendered, the Ontario Government opened the lease process to competitive bidding, prompting the applicant to file a Notice of Abandonment.

The respondent sought costs for the abandoned application.

The court found the substantive issues moot and exercised its discretion under Rule 38.08(3) to deny costs, as the abandonment resulted from a government decision outside the applicant's control that rendered the application unnecessary.

The appellants, who were self-represented at the time, appealed a master's order striking out their statement of defence for failing to comply with production orders.

On appeal, the Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding it provided context to the appellants' actions and showed they were not deliberately flouting court orders.

The court allowed the appeal, holding that the master denied the appellants procedural fairness by failing to explain the severe consequences of the motion, not inviting submissions on the specific issue of striking the defence, and ignoring a less drastic alternative proposed by the respondent's counsel.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which awarded compensation to a worker injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving home after responding to an emergency call outside normal working hours.

The Appeals Tribunal applied the Board's Travelling Policy, finding the worker was in the course of his employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Appeals Tribunal's decision was reasonable, within its jurisdiction, and properly applied the mandatory Board policy.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a hospital board's motion decision regarding the termination of his hospital privileges due to disruptive conduct.

The applicant argued that the Medical Advisory Committee lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its recommendation, that a board member's comments breached the Public Hospitals Act, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant must first exhaust his statutory remedies, including an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, before seeking judicial review.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's refusal to declare a mistrial and recuse himself from a statutory accident benefits arbitration.

The applicant argued that the arbitrator's exposure to settlement offers and off-the-record discussions during an emotional outburst by the self-represented respondent created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's knowledge of settlement information did not automatically mandate a mistrial and that his handling of the situation did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed a civil jury verdict dismissing his claims for assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of nervous shock against police, ambulance attendants, and store security, and awarding damages on the respondents' counterclaims.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing adjournments, admitting prejudicial expert testimony, and excluding medical reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's discretionary rulings on adjournments and evidence, and concluding there was a sufficient basis for the jury's punitive damages award.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order transferring three related actions to the Commercial List.

The plaintiffs argued that the actions, which alleged negligence against the defendants for their involvement in mining operations in Ecuador, were not commercial in nature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision to transfer the actions, as the pleadings relied on commercial statutes and raised issues of corporate governance.

The court also found that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance.

The Town of Collingwood sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed an appeal respecting the Education Development Charge By-laws of two school boards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Town failed to identify any arguable error of law in the Board's decision, as the issues raised primarily involved questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that awarded the tenants a rent abatement and compensation for alleged breaches of maintenance obligations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to address significant evidence from the landlord and by failing to provide adequate reasons for the quantum of the abatement and compensation.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant trade unions sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing their application to declare Cadillac Fairview a related or successor employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board had found that the amalgamation of two corporations did not erode bargaining rights and that there was no sale of a business.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The tenant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the landlord $10,000 for water damage to an adjoining unit, repair costs, and bailiff fees for distraining the tenant's truck.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by ignoring key evidence, including the landlord's refusal to allow the tenant's expert to inspect the damaged unit and the lack of evidence regarding the unit's condition at the start of the lease.

The Court also found the distraint of the tenant's truck parked in a common area was illegal under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant, Honda of Canada, Manufacturing, sought a stay of a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding pending the disposition of its application for judicial review.

Honda argued that the respondent failed to comply with disclosure rules, denying it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR MacDonald test.

The court found that Honda had not exhausted its remedies before the Tribunal, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the Tribunal proceeding to run its course.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the case management judge, who directed that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification be heard prior to the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

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 discretionary decision regarding the timing of procedural motions.

The appellant sought leave to adduce fresh evidence on his appeal from a Discipline Committee's finding of professional misconduct.

The proposed fresh evidence was a subsequent Registration Committee decision refusing to permit him to be registered to practice due to the misconduct finding.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding the evidence was not relevant to whether the appellant's actions constituted professional misconduct and could not reasonably be expected to affect the Discipline Committee's decision.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal Review Board (HPARB) that prevented him from practicing medicine.

HPARB consented to the extension, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) opposed it.

The court applied the test for extending time, noting the applicant's arguable case on the merits and the broader principle that an extension should be granted if the justice of the case requires it.

Considering the applicant's prior self-represented status, lack of prejudice to the CPSO, and the severe impact on his livelihood, the court granted the extension and awarded costs to the applicant.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a partial indemnity costs award of $650,000 granted to the plaintiffs following a lengthy and aggressively fought class action certification motion regarding allegedly defective pacemakers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order, noting that the defendants' aggressive approach significantly drove up the plaintiffs' costs.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Director's Delegate cancelling its Certificate of Revival under the Business Corporations Act.

The Delegate found the certificate invalid because the mandatory consent of the Minister of Finance was not attached to the Articles of Revival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Delegate's decision was reasonable and that the appellant was afforded procedural fairness.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding a duty to accommodate a paramedic who lost his Class F driver's licence due to vision problems.

The arbitrator had ordered the employer to accommodate the grievor in an 'attend only' capacity.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the arbitrator's decision, holding that the non-accommodating standard requiring all paramedics to drive was reasonably necessary to achieve the highest level of health and safety.

The court found the arbitrator erred by applying a standard of 'reasonable safety' and relying on a lack of historical evidence regarding volunteer paramedics.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the registration of a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Tribunal had excused the respondents' failure to disclose numerous prior convictions due to language barriers and ignorance of the law.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly assess whether the respondents' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity in the future.