ODC 2012

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which proceeded in his absence after denying his request for an adjournment.

The appellant also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence, claiming he had not received a letter outlining the shortcomings of his medical documentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the appellant had received the letter and his failure to provide the evidence earlier was due to a lack of diligence.

The court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's refusal to grant a further adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion and not a denial of natural justice, as the appellant had failed to comply with the reasonable conditions attached to a previous adjournment.

The applicant was dismissed from his employment after being arrested and charged with a criminal offence.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, arguing that being charged with an offence is a 'socio-political limitation' constituting a disability.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the statutory definition of disability is restricted to physical and mental conditions.

The Court also declined to hear a new constitutional challenge to the Code under s. 15(1) of the Charter, as it was not raised before the Tribunal and the interests of justice did not warrant an exception.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a decision by the City's General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation to close an off-leash dog area in Ledbury Park.

The General Manager closed the area due to unresolved conflicts between park users and adjacent residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision was reasonable and that the General Manager appropriately balanced competing community interests.

The court also held that the applicants were accorded adequate procedural fairness given the policy nature of the decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding his medication dosage for depression and misapplied the law by effectively requiring his impairment to be continuous rather than recurrent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the appellant's own testimony and that it correctly applied the statutory definition of disability.

The corporate defendant appealed an order striking its statement of defence for failing to comply with an interlocutory order requiring it to retain new counsel or obtain leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in concluding the defendant's recalcitrance and failure to comply with the clear terms of the order warranted the severe penalty of striking its pleadings.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him on the basis that the landlords required the basement unit for their daughter's use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by accepting an affidavit from the landlord on behalf of the 15-year-old daughter, failing to determine good faith, and ignoring the tenant's disabilities and the landlords' alleged breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the affidavit acceptable given the daughter's age and concluding the Board had reasonably considered all other matters.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board had dismissed the complaint on a prima facie basis without a hearing.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, as the union had conducted a reasonable investigation into the grievances.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness, bias, and language rights, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants brought two applications for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

At the hearing, the applicants requested an adjournment based on irrelevant proceedings and offensive submissions.

The court refused the adjournment and directed the applicants to proceed.

When the applicants refused to proceed, the court dismissed the applications and suggested that the respondents consider bringing a vexatious litigant application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Judicial Council's disposition of his complaint against a Small Claims Court judge.

The complaint took 584 days to resolve, which the applicant argued was an unreasonable delay.

The Divisional Court found that while the applicant had standing to bring the application, the OJC's procedure and disposition were reasonable and mandated by statute.

The application was dismissed, but costs were awarded to the unsuccessful applicant due to the OJC's delay and misleading correspondence regarding the availability of judicial review.

The respondent employee was entirely successful on a Small Claims Court appeal regarding her wrongful dismissal.

The court received written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $12,915.90, while the appellant employer argued each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be reduced.

The court rejected the appellant's argument, finding no reason to depart from the normal rule of partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed the respondent's costs of the appeal at $8,500 plus HST.

The appellants appealed an order requiring the individual appellant to pay the respondent $22,253.23 pursuant to a consent judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider the factual matrix surrounding the settlement and misapplied section 30 of the OBCA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 30 was not contravened because the corporate defendant was not ordered to pay for the shares, and that the clear terms of the consent judgment did not require reference to the factual matrix.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant employer in support of an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The underlying OLRB decision certified the union after finding that a specific worker was not an employee of the applicant.

The court applied the Keeprite standard to determine whether the impugned paragraphs of the affidavit were admissible to show an absence of evidence on an essential point before the Board.

The court struck most of the challenged paragraphs, finding they did not establish a lack of evidence, but permitted one paragraph to stand.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Land Titles to freeze the land records for a property after the applicant registered a self-to-self transfer despite having no prior interest in the land.

The applicant argued the Director lacked the authority under the Registry Act to freeze the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director had the jurisdiction under sections 23, 97(f), and 97.1(c) of the Registry Act to investigate and take preventative action against suspicious registrations.

The court also held that the Director's decision to freeze the records was reasonable and noted it would deny relief under its inherent jurisdiction as the applicant was attempting to create an interest in land where none existed.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order declaring a solicitor-client relationship and remitting the matter to an assessment officer.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction under sections 19(1)(a) and 19(1.1) of the Courts of Justice Act is limited to appeals from monetary awards.

As the judgment appealed from was not a monetary award, the court lacked jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario refusing its application for a liquor licence.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because, although it correctly stated the onus was on the objectors to prove the licence was against the public interest, it failed to apply that test and balance the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs for four appeals totaling $10,495.51.

The appellants argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $3,000.

The court found the respondents' request reasonable and in line with the Boucher test, noting the appellants' own costs outline was for $9,549.24.

The court awarded the respondents costs of $2,623.88 for each appeal, totaling $10,495.51.

The moving party, Donald Bartlett Jr., sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion to amend his statement of defence and withdraw admissions made in 1990 regarding a guarantee.

The Divisional Court applied the test under Rule 62.02(4)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's findings on two of the three elements for withdrawing an admission, it found no reason to doubt the finding on the second element (inadvertence or wrong instructions).

Furthermore, the court held that the matter did not involve issues of public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,000.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that Human Resources Secretaries were not excluded from the bargaining unit under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court held that the Board reasonably interpreted the provision as requiring the confidential capacity to relate to the specific bargaining unit in which the employee would be a member, to avoid a conflict of loyalty.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The City of Toronto sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal a decision refusing an interlocutory injunction regarding the federal firearms registry.

The underlying application by the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic challenged the constitutionality of legislation eliminating the requirement to register unrestricted firearms.

The court dismissed the City's motion to intervene, finding that the City could not make a useful contribution to the narrow issue of whether leave to appeal should be granted, as no further evidence would be admitted and the applicant could fully argue the relevant issues.

The appellant, acting as estate trustee, brought a motion for a stay of an order requiring her to pay $10,000 as security for costs pending her motion for leave to appeal that order.

The underlying action against her father's former common-law spouse was dismissed on summary judgment.

The appellant argued that a serious issue to be tried existed regarding whether American Sign Language (ASL) constitutes an oral language, which would exempt an alleged agreement from the writing requirement of s. 55 of the Family Law Act.

The court found that the appellant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, noting the previous judge's finding that the appeal was almost certain to fail.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.