ODC 2010

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory order made by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in a complaint that had been ongoing since 2003.

The Divisional Court quashed the application, declining to depart from the general rule against hearing judicial reviews of interlocutory orders, despite the troubling history and delay.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motions under Rules 20 and 21 to strike the respondent's claims for constructive dismissal and related torts as statute-barred.

The motion judge had found that the claims could have been discovered before the respondent resigned, potentially triggering the six-year limitation period under the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a cause of action for constructive dismissal arises only when the employee resigns.

As the resignation occurred in May 2004, the two-year limitation period applied and the claims were statute-barred.

The court also held that the motion judge erred in linking the Rule 20 and Rule 21 motions, and found no triable issue regarding promissory estoppel or acknowledgment of liability.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to extend the time for serving a notice of hearing for disciplinary proceedings.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that the Commissioner's decision was interlocutory and administrative in nature.

The court emphasized the general principle against fragmenting administrative proceedings and noted that the applicant could raise any issues of prejudice or delay before the hearing adjudicator.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the appeal was frivolous and noting the appellant's scandalous allegations against the court.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $3,500, taking into account the $7,200 claimed in the original action.

The court also reprimanded the self-represented appellant, who is a lawyer by training, for her disrespectful and unfounded attacks on the judiciary.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging the Crown's decision to withdraw criminal charges he had initiated as a private prosecutor.

The matter was transferred to the Divisional Court by a Superior Court judge.

Both parties brought a motion to remit the application back to the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the application was criminal in nature and, pursuant to Rule 43 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules, should be heard by a judge of the Superior Court.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision setting aside a Master's order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The court found that the lower court's brief decision was based on well-settled law and did not raise an issue of significance meriting the attention of the Divisional Court.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board decisions ordering the issuance of demolition permits for thirteen buildings.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the respondents filed their appeal after the time limit in section 3 of the City of Toronto Act, 1985 had expired.

The Board had found this time limit conflicted with the Planning Act and assumed jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdictional decision, holding that the two statutes could co-exist without conflict.

However, the Court found no reason to doubt the Board's decision on the merits.

Leave to appeal was granted solely on the jurisdictional question.

The tenant was evicted following a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy.

He brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the decision and for an order permitting him to return to the rented premises pending the appeal, citing language barriers as the reason for missing the deadline.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time and permitted the tenant to return to the premises, subject to conditions including expediting the appeal and paying all rent on time.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to order a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act (CHA) for a proposed golf course and residential development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to order a joint board because the potential hearings under the Ontario Water Resources Act were exempt under the applicable regulations.

Furthermore, the Court found that the OMB had the discretion under s. 24(2) of the CHA to refuse to order a joint board and made no error in exercising that discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting judgment of $13,413.04 to the respondent, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to deference absent a palpable and overriding error.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained his conclusions and provided a sufficient basis for appellate review.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved the officer issuing but failing to serve six traffic tickets, resulting in an innocent man being wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for five days.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, upholding the findings of misconduct, and concluding that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the egregious nature of the officer's actions and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The appellants, a law firm and lawyer, appealed the dismissal of their motion to strike a defamation claim.

The respondent had sued the appellants for defamation based on a letter and draft statement of claim sent to a town planner the day before the claim was officially issued.

The motion judge held that absolute privilege did not apply because the communication contained gratuitously defamatory material intended to induce false testimony.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that absolute privilege applies to communications made preparatory to and with a view to judicial proceedings, regardless of malice or falsity.

The court found the communication was made on an occasion of absolute privilege and struck the statement of claim.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit during a union certification process.

The Board had excluded 11 drivers based on the 'greatest attachment' test and 15 employees under the 'office and clerical' exception.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found that the Board reasonably applied the greatest attachment test given the agreed-upon geographical limitation of the bargaining unit, and reasonably concluded that the disputed employees' duties were administrative in nature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found them liable for a $15,653 breach of contract committed by the main defendant, Nicholas Bulut, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against all defendants without hearing submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding no legal basis in contract, corporate veil piercing, or unjust enrichment to hold the other defendants liable for Nicholas Bulut's breach.

The Court also set aside the trial judge's costs award due to a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice, as the trial judge refused to hear submissions.

The Court substituted its own costs order, awarding the appellants partial indemnity costs from the date of their Rule 49 offer to settle.

The plaintiff brought motions for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders that dismissed a motion to continue an ex parte Anton Piller order and dismissed subsequent motions for relief under Rules 30 and 45.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge properly considered the matter de novo and correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case to justify continuing the intrusive order.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the orders and no denial of natural justice.

The appellants appealed the imposition of two conditions on an order for the partition and sale of a commercial property, while the respondents cross-appealed seeking to reverse the order for sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of co-ownership but set aside the condition requiring the prior payment of $1 million, finding that conflicting evidence regarding payment required a trial.

The court held that the sale could not proceed until the issues of payment and alleged oppression were resolved at trial.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part.

The appellant, a senior insurance agency employee, appealed the dismissal of her wrongful dismissal claim.

The trial judge found she was dismissed for just cause after deliberately manipulating her own auto insurance policy to avoid paying $4,600 in annual premiums, breaching the duty of utmost good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the misconduct justified summary dismissal.

The third party insurer sought leave to appeal a motion judge's comments regarding alternative relief under Rules 20 and 21.

The motion judge had granted the insurer's primary request to stay the main action and third party claim, but commented in obiter that he would have dismissed the alternative relief had he not granted the stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's hypothetical comments did not constitute an appealable interlocutory order.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of its property, and an extension of time to file the notice of application.

The Board had assessed the property based solely on its recent purchase price, without adjusting for the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity as required by the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time, finding the statutory time limit to be procedural and the delay adequately explained.

The Court also granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision and that the interpretation of the equity provisions in the Assessment Act raised an issue of law of significance.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a $128,000 costs order made against him by the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors following findings of professional misconduct.

He argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the quantum was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Health Professions Procedural Code's costs provisions prevailed and that the quantum was reasonable given the length and complexity of the hearing, the serious nature of the misconduct, and the appellant's refusal to admit wrongdoing.