ODC 2011

The appellant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his real estate broker registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant made false statements and his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity.

The Divisional Court found these findings reasonable but held the Tribunal's failure to address whether the renewal could be granted subject to conditions rendered the decision unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed an order of a Master dismissing her wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The appellant argued the Master erred by measuring the delay from September 2006 and ignoring intervening factors, such as a previous order excusing delay and an amended statement of claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master properly considered the entire history of the litigation, correctly applied the law regarding inordinate and inexcusable delay, and properly found the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation for injuries sustained during an assault.

The Board found the appellant contributed to his injuries by participating in illegal drug-related activities.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by admitting hearsay evidence from a police officer without adequate prior notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board is permitted to admit hearsay evidence and the appellant received sufficient notice of the allegations to satisfy the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $7,500 for breach of contract.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by denying an adjournment, admitting an undisclosed document and a privileged settlement offer, intervening excessively, and misunderstanding evidence due to ill health.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors and concluding that the trial judge's credibility findings and ultimate decision were supported by the evidence.

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn its appeal of a decision by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The appellant sought the adjournment pending the outcome of an unrelated judicial review application by another licensee challenging the Board's institutional impartiality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that an adjournment could prejudice the respondent and delay the resolution of four-year-old allegations.

Crucially, the court noted that the appellant had never raised the issue of bias in its own case and declined to amend its Notice of Appeal to do so.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order removing their counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The motion judge had found that the law firm had a current client relationship with one of the responding parties, a corporate affiliate of the moving parties' opponents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct legal principles regarding conflicts of interest and that her decision was highly fact-specific.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that set aside a judgment obtained after the defendants failed to attend trial.

The plaintiffs argued there was a conflicting decision and good reason to doubt the correctness of the order under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 52.01(3) to set aside the judgment on terms, and there was no conflicting decision or reason to doubt the order's correctness.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario convicting it of infractions under the Liquor Licence Act, including permitting drunkenness, selling liquor to an intoxicated person, and overcrowding a patio.

The appellant argued there was a breach of natural justice due to delayed notice, that the Board misapprehended evidence, and that the defence of necessity applied to the overcrowding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no unreasonable delay in notice, no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence, and that the defence of necessity could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union policy grievance regarding unilateral changes to employee health benefit plans.

The employer argued the grievance was improperly filed as a policy grievance, improperly expanded in scope, and that the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's conclusions on arbitrability, scope, and interpretation of the collective agreement fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to return $41,743.15 paid by the respondent under a written agreement for a leasehold interest.

The respondent had defaulted on payments, prompting the appellant to cancel the contract and sell the interest to a third party.

The trial judge characterized the agreement as a purchase and sale without a forfeiture clause and ordered the return of the funds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge committed an error of law by failing to consider the appellant's evidence that the contract was a 'rent to own' agreement where payments were non-refundable rent.

The applicants, who own and operate pharmacies in Ontario, challenged the validity of provincial regulations that prohibited 'private label' generic drugs from being designated as interchangeable or listed for public reimbursement.

The Divisional Court held that the regulations were ultra vires the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act.

The Court found that the enabling statutes authorized the imposition of conditions, not absolute prohibitions, and that the ban on private label products was extraneous to the legislative purpose of controlling drug costs.

The regulations were declared invalid and of no force and effect.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging the promulgation of a regulation prescribing minimum setback requirements for wind energy facilities.

The applicant argued the Minister of the Environment failed to consider the precautionary principle in the ministry's statement of environmental values, as required by section 11 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was protected by privative clauses and that the Minister had complied with the mandated process by considering all principles, including the precautionary principle, alongside other policy factors.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to repay student loans to the respondent bank.

The central issue was whether the loans were ordinary bank loans subject to a two-year limitation period, or government student loans exempt from limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the loans were made under the Canada Student Loans Act, as that statute had been replaced by the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act at the relevant time.

Given the insufficient evidentiary record regarding the exact nature of the loans, the court allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial.

The plaintiff bank moved for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment against a corporate debtor and personal guarantors.

The court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the bank had an irrefutable claim for partial summary judgment.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal because the issue was not of general importance, holding that an allegedly incorrect application of Rule 20 does not automatically create a matter of general importance warranting an appeal.

The employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding that the employee was terminated by operation of the Employment Standards Act due to prolonged layoffs, and awarding common law damages.

The employer argued that damages should be restricted to the statutory minimums.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not create a ceiling for damages.

A cross-appeal by the employee regarding the deduction of mitigation earnings was also dismissed.

The damages were reduced by $200 to account for an unpaid loan.

The appellant insurance company appealed a decision dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent homeowners.

The respondents had sued for damages following unsatisfactory home repairs after a flood.

The appellant failed to file a statement of defence despite multiple extensions, and delayed several months before moving to set aside the default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that while the motions judge erred in concluding there was no arguable defence on the merits, she correctly found the appellant failed to explain the default or move promptly.

Weighing all factors, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal, finding the justice of the case required denying relief due to the appellant's unexplained delay.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its judicial review application pending the Ontario Energy Board's reconsideration of an earlier decision regarding the applicant's failure to sign an assignment document.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, noting that the outcome of the reconsideration could significantly impact the judicial review application.

Costs of $600 each were awarded to the intervenors.

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it had unjustly dismissed a long-term employee and awarded significant damages, including past and future economic loss, $50,000 for mental distress, and $50,000 in punitive damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's decision to award economic loss and mental distress damages in lieu of reinstatement, finding it reasonable given the employer's bad faith in the manner of dismissal.

However, the Court set aside the quantum of mental distress damages because it improperly included unsupported damages for physical pain and suffering.

The Court also set aside the punitive damages award due to a denial of natural justice and the arbitrator's failure to identify an independent actionable wrong or address proportionality.

The issues of quantum for mental distress and punitive damages were remitted to the arbitrator.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision dismissing its appeal against the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment (OPA 77) without a hearing.

The applicant argued the OMB erred by reviewing evidence on the motion to dismiss, akin to a summary judgment motion, rather than assuming the facts in the notice of appeal were true.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the OMB's procedure was reasonable and necessary to screen out appeals with no chance of success.

The court also found no error in the OMB's conclusion that the applicant's environmental and storm water management concerns could not form a land use planning basis to refuse OPA 77 at this stage.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to remove and replace the administrator of a condominium corporation.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred in principle in applying the test for replacing an administrator under the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, noting she had properly assessed the evidence and applied the correct test.

The court also found the matter did not transcend the interests of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.