ODC 2010

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct for refusing to attend an interview with a Society investigator.

The appellant argued that the Law Society Act only authorized the Society to require the provision of information, not attendance at an oral interview.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Society's broad duty to protect the public interest required effective investigation powers, including the authority to compel oral interviews.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel the responding parties to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The motion judge had found no need for the order because the moving parties' lawyers already had access to the documents through a related proceeding involving the same responding parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motion judge's decision was a practical solution to a unique factual matrix and did not raise matters of general or public importance.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel the defendant to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The plaintiff argued the order conflicted with case law and misapprehended the nature of Anton Piller orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge's decision was discretionary, turned on the specific facts of the case, and did not involve matters of general public importance.

The court noted the plaintiff already had access to the documents in question and was arguably in a better position to list them.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action and an order refusing to strike the claim against the defendant law firm.

The underlying action involved a charitable gift program that was disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency, leading to claims of breach of contract and negligence against the promoters and the law firm that provided tax opinions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the common issues requirement was met and that the pleadings disclosed a tenable cause of action in negligence against the law firm.

The applicant, a chartered accountant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario's Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with an investigation.

The investigation stemmed from a complaint that the applicant helped a client conceal income in a matrimonial dispute.

The applicant argued that the investigating committee breached its duty of fairness by expanding the investigation without notice and breached its disclosure obligations by not providing the preliminary investigative report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the investigation had expanded and holding that there was no obligation to disclose the preliminary report during an ongoing investigation.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision ordering the disclosure of a police officer's personnel file in a civil suit for wrongful detention and assault.

The court granted leave to appeal pursuant to Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding a conflict between the decision below and another case regarding the interpretation of sections 69 and 80 of the Police Services Act.

The court concluded it was desirable to clarify whether a police officer's personnel file should be disclosed in the context of a civil lawsuit.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring a defendant to disclose the material information contained in a statement he gave to his insurer following a motor vehicle accident.

The statement itself was protected by litigation privilege.

The motion judge found that the order compelling disclosure conflicted with other Ontario decisions regarding whether the contents of a privileged statement must be disclosed on discovery.

Leave to appeal was granted as it was desirable for the Divisional Court to clarify when the contents of such statements are subject to disclosure.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in favour of the plaintiff.

The motion judge had found it arguable that the plaintiff, a limited partner, had a reasonable claim to an interest in the property through a constructive trust.

The Divisional Court found that while there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant granting leave, as the motion judge had merely found the legal propositions to be arguable rather than making new law.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed a union grievance regarding balance and deposit time for collectors on overtime shifts.

The applicant argued the arbitrator breached natural justice and reached an unreasonable decision by relying on a without-prejudice settlement.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator erred in admitting the settlement, this did not amount to a denial of natural justice.

The court concluded the arbitrator's decision was reasonable as it was independently supported by uncontradicted evidence and the wording of a prior agreement.

The respondents moved for security for costs of an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, arguing the appeal was frivolous and the corporate appellant lacked assets in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the appeal was not devoid of merit given previous findings regarding the respondent's credibility.

Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide a breakdown of projected costs or evidence that the appellant lacked assets of any kind to cover costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to amend a judgment that approved an infant settlement, and sought leave to extend the time to appeal the original judgment.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the orders appealed from did not require payment of any amount by the appellant, and no leave to appeal had been granted.

The respondents moved ex parte to dismiss the appeal after the appellant failed to comply with a peremptory order to perfect the appeal by a specified date.

The court noted that the appellant had not picked up or paid for the completed transcript.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the tenant a rent abatement for water damage extending back more than one year prior to the tenant's application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 29(2) and s. 30(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Board only has jurisdiction to award a rent abatement for breaches occurring within the one-year limitation period preceding the application.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order based on rent arrears and personal use.

The tenant did not appear at the motion.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's appeal raised only questions of fact regarding procedural fairness at the Board, not questions of law, and noted that the tenant had failed to perfect the appeal.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Board had determined that the respondent's proposed large retail store development in a designated Employment Area did not constitute a 'conversion' under the Growth Plan, and thus did not require a municipal comprehensive review.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the application was not premature given the fundamental nature of the question, there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation of the Official Plan and Growth Plan, and the issue was of sufficient general importance to land use planning in Ontario.

The respondent sought costs of $61,000 following a successful appeal regarding the Ontario Municipal Board's jurisdiction to order a joint board.

The Divisional Court denied the costs request, finding that the respondent caused unnecessary steps and lengthened the proceeding by failing to raise the jurisdictional issue at first instance or during the initial leave to appeal application.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that he was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The Tribunal found the appellant had a substantial impairment due to back pain but no substantial restriction in activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the standard of review was correctness for questions of law, the Tribunal did not apply an incorrect test, the evidentiary findings were open to the Tribunal, and the reasons were adequate.

The applicant sought costs of $61,486.11 on a full indemnity basis following the respondent's unsuccessful motion for a stay.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs as the successful party under rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, but declined to award full indemnity costs.

Finding the amount sought excessive for a non-complex motion, the court awarded costs fixed at $7,500 inclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions and requested to set aside a Memorandum of Settlement reached at the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant claimed he signed the settlement while impaired by medication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence of impairment and noting it lacked jurisdiction to review a settlement agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the application was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay, as the applicant waited eleven months to commence the application and another seven months to perfect it.

The moving party husband sought leave to appeal an interim spousal support order made under the Divorce Act.

He argued that the Divorce Act provided an appeal as of right, rendering the provincial requirement for leave inoperative due to paramountcy.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the Divorce Act itself incorporates provincial appellate procedures.

Applying the test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order, the court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the interim support order, which appropriately considered the parties' lavish lifestyle and the husband's high income.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.