ODC 2014

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel revoking his license to practice law after he was found to be ungovernable.

The appellant argued that the panels misapprehended evidence regarding his remorse, character, discipline history, and a proposed supervision plan, and failed to consider systemic racism.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the disciplinary panels' decisions were reasonable, entitled to deference, and that the appellant failed to establish a causal connection between his race and the professional misconduct.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to close two secondary schools and build a new one, alleging procedural unfairness, lack of statutory authority, and unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board substantially complied with the Ministry's school closure guidelines and its own policies.

The court held that the public consultation process was meaningful and that the failure to disclose certain confidential student survey data did not breach the duty of procedural fairness, as it did not prejudice the applicants' ability to participate.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order of $25,000 awarded to the plaintiffs following a motion.

The defendants argued the motions judge breached procedural fairness by hearing costs submissions without giving them time to review the plaintiffs' bill of costs, and erred in assessing success.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The court noted that parties are expected to be prepared for costs submissions immediately following a motion.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a $52,000 costs order made against them following their successful motion to amend the statement of claim.

The plaintiffs argued the motions judge misapplied the 'indulgence' principle by awarding costs against the successful moving party.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the highly discretionary, fact-specific costs award.

The court held the stringent test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) was not met.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for delay.

The applicant's late husband was denied a liver transplant due to a policy requiring six months of abstinence from alcohol.

The applicant filed her human rights complaint almost two years later, arguing she did not know the policy was discriminatory until then.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that ignorance of the law does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted her an adjournment of a summary judgment motion on the condition that the divorce be severed from corollary issues.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in principle by severing the divorce without specifically determining whether the moving party would be disadvantaged or prejudiced, as required by Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant leave.

East Durham Wind, LP moved to be added as a party or intervener in an application for judicial review concerning a Renewable Energy Approval for its wind project.

The applicant opposed the motion, while the respondent Ministry consented.

The court granted East Durham Wind party intervener status under Rule 13.01, finding it had a direct economic interest and could make a useful contribution.

The court also granted the moving party's request to conditionally transfer the proceeding from Brampton to Toronto to facilitate an expedited hearing before the scheduled start of project construction.

The appellant property assessment corporation appealed a decision declaring a student residence located on a college campus exempt from property taxation.

The college had entered into a 99-year land lease with a private developer to construct and operate the residence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in concluding the college was the tenant of the land.

The Court held that the private developer was the tenant and paramount occupier of the land, making it liable for property taxes under the Assessment Act, and that the college lost its specific tax exemption when it ceased to solely occupy the land.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing her motion to set aside a Registrar's order that had dismissed her personal injury action as abandoned.

The Divisional Court found that the Master made palpable and overriding errors by concluding that the appellant's counsel's affidavit had no evidentiary value and by finding prejudice to the respondent based on the expiration of the limitation period.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the Master's decision, and ordered the Registrar's dismissal order set aside.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order of $25,000 awarded against them following a motion regarding outstanding undertakings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no conflicting decisions on costs and that the motion judge's discretion was not wrongly exercised given the defendants' delay in the personal injury action.

The court held that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant granting leave.

The appellant building mortgagee appealed an order confirming a Master's report in a construction lien priority dispute.

The Master found that the appellant's $25,000 mortgage advance was made on November 19, 2009, giving the respondent lien claimant priority, based on a formal admission of fact that the appellant was refused leave to withdraw.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied the standard of review and that the formal admission of fact was conclusive.

The appellant municipality appealed an order varying a previous unentered order that had dismissed the self-represented respondent's action.

The motion judge had varied his own order to allow the respondent to file an amended statement of claim, on the condition that it be prepared by a licensed lawyer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in exercising his discretion to vary the order without considering the potential impact on limitation periods, and that there was no clear authority to order a self-represented litigant to retain a lawyer to draft pleadings.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision which found that the respondent insured was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The insurer had denied the insured's claim for a non-earner benefit but failed to provide a copy of the medical report it relied upon until more than two years later.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable, as the failure to provide the medical report meant the insurer provided incomplete reasons for the denial, and thus the two-year limitation period did not commence until the report was finally provided.

The applicant lawyer commenced a Small Claims Court action against a former client for unpaid fees.

After failing to comply with a production order requiring documents to be organized chronologically, the Deputy Judge ordered the applicant to pay $2,000 in costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interlocutory costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that it was essentially an appeal by a different name and that the Deputy Judge had jurisdiction to impose costs for litigation misconduct without breaching natural justice.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from an order dismissing his appeal of a Master's order that found him mentally incapable and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the previous judge's analysis and conclusions regarding the medical evidence of incapacity.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed acts of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee's reasons were flawed.

Specifically, the Committee failed to distinguish between the complainant's honesty and the reliability of her evidence, subjected the appellant's evidence to a different level of scrutiny, and improperly used after-the-fact conduct to support the complainant's version of events.

The matter was remitted for a re-hearing.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding it violated the Liquor Licence Act by serving underage and intoxicated patrons, resulting in a five-day licence suspension.

The appellant argued it had exercised due diligence through staff training.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the staff failed to properly check identification or assess intoxication, thereby failing to establish due diligence.

The court also upheld the five-day suspension as a reasonable penalty.

The applicants sought to challenge the Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear a free-standing challenge to the policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, confirming that the Tribunal, as a creature of statute, only has the jurisdiction granted by the legislature and that such a challenge must be pursued by way of a court application.

The plaintiffs, aboriginal persons removed from their homes by Ontario child welfare authorities and placed with non-aboriginal families, brought a proposed class action against Canada for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

Canada appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the statement of claim and the certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence disclosed no reasonable cause of action, given Canada's unique relationship with aboriginal peoples and its delegation of child welfare responsibilities to Ontario.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court decision regarding a disputed legal retainer.

The court applied the four-factor test for extending time to appeal, finding that the appellant formed an intention to appeal in time, the delay was minimal with a reasonable explanation, there was no prejudice to the respondent, and the appeal had sufficient merit.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.