ODC 2011

The appellant husband appealed an order reinstating his pleadings on the condition that he comply with a disclosure order and pay $35,000 in interim disbursements plus costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the interim disbursements condition because the motions judge failed to provide reasons, consider the appellant's ability to pay, or give notice that this issue would be decided.

The conditions regarding disclosure and costs were upheld.

The appellant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and sexual abuse suffered at a training school as a youth.

The Board denied compensation, taking into account the appellant's subsequent criminal behaviour, including a conviction for rape.

The appellant appealed, arguing that subsequent conduct should not be considered under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's broad discretion to consider 'all relevant circumstances' includes the claimant's subsequent criminal conduct.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision granting the plaintiffs' motion to amend their statement of claim to convert their individual environmental contamination action into a class proceeding.

The defendants argued the court lacked jurisdiction to convert an individual action to a class proceeding, applied the wrong test for the amendment, and improperly allowed the addition of potentially statute-barred claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the court had jurisdiction, that the Rule 26.01 test for amendments applied, and that limitation period issues were best left for the certification stage.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision not to report an alleged contravention of the Election Finances Act by a third-party advertiser to the Attorney General.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the Chief Electoral Officer's handling of the complaint did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also found the challenge to the third party's 2007 registration to be moot.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing his Small Claims Court action against OC Transpo for delay and failure to commence the claim within the applicable limitation period.

The appellant alleged he was injured on two separate occasions while riding OC Transpo buses due to the negligent modification of the buses.

The Divisional Court found that the pith and substance of the claim was for personal injury arising from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, making it subject to the two-year limitation period under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court held that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by his delay and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The applicants, who were parties to an inquest into the death of an inmate, sought judicial review of a Coroner's decision refusing to order the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to produce certain video recordings.

In preparation for the judicial review, the applicants served a summons on the Commissioner of the CSC, requiring him to bring the videos to an examination so they could be viewed by the Divisional Court.

The CSC brought a motion to quash the summons.

The court granted the motion and quashed the summons, finding that the videos were clearly irrelevant to the issues on judicial review, which were limited to whether the Coroner acted unfairly or exceeded her jurisdiction.

The court noted that the record already contained sufficient descriptions of the videos' contents for the purpose of the judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his application for unreasonable delay.

The events underlying the complaint occurred in 1994, but the application was not filed until 2010.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the 15-year delay would cause substantial prejudice to the respondents and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenants appealed both the Board's decision to grant a review and its subsequent decision that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to their relationship.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash the appeal regarding the decision to grant a review, finding it was out of time and declining to extend the time limit.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the appeal on the merits, concluding it was premature to determine whether the appeal raised a question of law without full submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order that permitted the respondent to be represented by a paralegal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that it is reluctant to interfere with Small Claims Court interlocutory orders on judicial review unless there is a lack of jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice.

The court found no such breach and emphasized that the purpose of the Small Claims Court is to provide expeditious and low-cost resolution of disputes, which precludes appeals from interlocutory orders.

The applicants, facing discipline proceedings before the Ontario College of Pharmacists, brought a motion seeking production of Third Party Records in advance of a pending judicial review application.

The Discipline Committee had previously dismissed their motion for disclosure at the first stage of the O'Connor and Mills test, finding the records were not likely relevant.

The applicants argued the records were necessary for the court to properly analyze the production issue on judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the issue on judicial review is whether the Tribunal erred in law at the first stage of the analysis, and examining the records beforehand would usurp the Tribunal's function.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to revoke a real estate broker's registration, instead imposing conditions.

The broker had been involved in transactions where properties were flipped at inflated prices, facilitating mortgage fraud, though the Tribunal found he lacked actual knowledge of the fraud.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably assessed the broker's past conduct, including mitigating factors, and appropriately applied the balance of probabilities standard.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof and failed to properly apply the statutory test for registration entitlement.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for personal liability against the individual respondent, Stewart.

The claim arose from home renovation contracts signed under the business name 'Renoclub', which failed to disclose the underlying numbered corporation in breach of the Business Corporations Act and Business Names Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that such breaches do not automatically result in personal liability, and that the evidence established the appellants knew they were dealing with a corporation rather than Stewart personally.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the arbitrability of a grievance.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, applying the general rule that courts will not entertain judicial review of preliminary rulings while tribunal proceedings are pending, absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify bifurcating the ruling from the merits.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision upholding an Assessment Officer's assessment of legal fees.

The Assessment Officer discounted the time of two senior lawyers because their dockets were not served in compliance with the Evidence Act and the lawyers did not attend the hearing, depriving the client of the opportunity to cross-examine them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Assessment Officer's decision or the reviewing judge's consideration.

The appellant objected to the involvement of the respondent's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest, and sought to have counsel removed.

The Divisional Court declined to make the order, noting that the objection was raised late, the lower court had already found no conflict, the quantum in issue was very small, and requiring the respondent to retain new counsel would cause undue delay and expense.

The City of St. Catharines sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the release of a report considered during an in camera municipal council meeting.

The report concerned a property owner's request to acquire city land or obtain an encroachment agreement.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness for the Commissioner's interpretation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but correctness for the Municipal Act.

Although the Adjudicator erred in finding the meeting was improperly closed under the Municipal Act, the ultimate decision to release most of the report was reasonable because the report did not reveal the actual substance of the in camera deliberations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the contracting out of a 'locating function' previously performed by an Inspector.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the locating function constituted 'work' under the collective agreement.

The court held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's remedy was reasonableness.

The arbitrator's decision to award damages as an incentive for compliance, calculated based on the value of the work, was deemed reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The respondent sought costs following the dismissal of the appellant's motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the appeal for delay.

The court declined to award costs for the underlying Small Claims Court action, as the respondent had prior opportunities to seek them.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court reduced the respondent's claimed hours and fixed costs of the motion at $1,900 inclusive of HST.

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Katz Group Canada Inc., sought costs after being wholly successful in their judicial review applications against the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The respondents argued the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.

The Divisional Court rejected the duplication argument, noting the complexity and importance of the first-instance proceeding.

The court awarded Katz Group its full claimed costs, but reduced Shoppers Drug Mart's fee claim from $104,354 to $80,000 due to excessive hours and duplication among its legal team.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his motion to amend his statement of claim to add two third parties as defendants.

The appellant suffered a spinal injury in a swimming pool accident when he was a minor.

The court considered the transitional provisions and discoverability rules under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court upheld the Master's finding that the appellant did not actually discover his claim against the specific third parties prior to January 1, 2004.

Furthermore, the court held that a minor without a litigation guardian cannot be deemed to have discovered a claim under s. 5(1)(b), as minors are presumed not to know their rights.

The appeal was dismissed.