ODC 2014

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim abandoned their motion for leave to appeal, which was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff's separate motion for leave to appeal was delayed because the required issued and entered orders had not been filed.

The court noted the substantial costs already incurred by the parties and suggested that case management by a single judge of the Divisional Court might be appropriate given the likelihood of multiple future appearances.

Costs for the appearance were left to the discretion of the judge hearing the remaining motion.

Following a successful appeal that certified a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the court determined the costs of the original certification motion.

The appellant sought over $749,000, while the respondent argued for costs thrown away or no costs due to the appellant significantly reformulating her claim on appeal.

The Divisional Court held that while the appellant was entitled to costs because the case involved matters of public interest, the amount must be reduced to reflect the time spent on claims against defendants that were later abandoned.

The court fixed the costs of the original certification motion at $125,728.03 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The OSPCA appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $11,926.83 in Charter damages under s. 24(1) following a warrantless search of his farm.

The trial judge had found a s. 8 Charter breach but failed to conduct the required functional analysis under Ward.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the remedies already granted at the Provincial Offences Act trial (exclusion of evidence and withdrawal of charges) sufficiently fulfilled the functions of vindication and deterrence.

The court substituted the Charter damages award with nominal damages of $100 for trespass.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal committee decision upholding the designation of his two dogs as 'Dangerous Dogs' after they were involved in an incident that resulted in the death of another dog.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness and that the committee erred in its interpretation of the by-law because it could not determine which specific dog caused the fatal injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the hearing was procedurally fair and that the committee's decision to designate both dogs was reasonable given their joint involvement in the attack.

The appellant, a licensed electrical contractor, appealed a decision of the review panel of the Electrical Safety Authority confirming a defect notice.

The notice was issued after the appellant disconnected and reconnected an electrical panel without authorization, allegedly violating rule 2-012 of the Ontario Electrical Safety Code.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness and found the review panel's broad interpretation of the rule—requiring authorization for all disconnections regardless of method or reason—was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant commenced a Small Claims Court action for goods sold and delivered.

The respondent counterclaimed and later commenced a Superior Court action for a higher amount, successfully moving to transfer the Small Claims Court proceedings to the Superior Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred by failing to consider whether the issues were capable of being justly resolved in the Small Claims Court, as required by the Vigna test.

The transfer order was set aside, allowing the Small Claims Court action to proceed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board dismissing its Requests for Hearing regarding the removal of vascular ultrasound services from its licences.

The Board had dismissed the requests due to an inordinate 15-year delay causing prejudice, and found the requests moot because the appellant failed to comply with Minutes of Settlement that provided a mechanism to restore the services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and its application of the test for administrative delay correct.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario imposing clinical supervision conditions on his practice, pending his application for judicial review.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court held that the financial cost of supervision did not amount to irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the College due to patient safety concerns.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion for directions regarding the admissibility of certain paragraphs in Dr. Chong's affidavit filed on a motion to stay.

The College argued that the paragraphs contained quality assurance information, which is protected under s. 83.1(6) of the Act.

The court agreed, ruling that the legislation does not permit quality assurance information to be referred to or treated as evidence.

The court excluded the paragraphs from evidence, noting that Dr. Chong's counsel could still refer to the information during argument as it was already in the record of proceedings.

Two legal associations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning professional misconduct and the role of advocates.

The appeal raised issues regarding when zealous advocacy crosses into actionable misconduct and the use of prior court decisions in disciplinary proceedings.

The court granted both motions, finding that the proposed interveners, as recognized organizations of advocates, would provide useful perspectives on the implications of the issues raised without duplicating the parties' submissions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board affirming the denial of her registration as a Registered Practical Nurse.

The appellant had failed the non-exemptible licensing examination three times, despite receiving accommodations for reading difficulties on her second and third attempts.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no evidence of testing improprieties or extraordinary circumstances to justify annulling the examinations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent law firm commenced an action in the Small Claims Court to recover $26,051.59 in legal fees pursuant to a contingency fee agreement after the appellant terminated its services.

The appellant moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, which the Deputy Judge dismissed without reasons.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that under the Solicitors Act, the Small Claims Court is expressly excluded from considering issues arising under a written fee agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the Small Claims Court action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant, who received a structured settlement from a 1980 motor vehicle accident, appealed a decision reducing his Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Director determined that only the $60,000 principal used to purchase his lifetime annuity was exempt as damages for pain and suffering under O. Reg. 222/98, while the ongoing payments exceeding that amount constituted non-exempt interest income.

The Social Benefits Tribunal upheld this decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the exemption is limited to the original lump sum and does not extend to the interest generated by the annuity.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which found it had jurisdiction to determine whether site plan control applied to a proposed change of use for the respondent's property.

The Chief Building Official had refused a building permit on the basis that site plan control applied.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision on a true question of jurisdiction, and noting the issue was of sufficient general importance.

The applicant soccer club brought an urgent application for judicial review of a decision by the respondent sports governing body's Protest Committee, which had reversed the applicant's semi-final victory due to an alleged ineligible player.

The Divisional Court found it had jurisdiction to review the decision because the governing body exercises compulsory power over a broad segment of the public, giving its decisions a significant public dimension.

The court set aside the Protest Committee's decision, finding it unreasonable and procedurally unfair, as the player's ineligibility was caused by an administrative error by the association itself and the applicant was not given a fair opportunity to respond.

The applicant's victory was restored.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction restraining them from soliciting the plaintiff's clients and using its confidential information.

The individual defendants had left the plaintiff's employment to join the corporate defendant, allegedly taking client lists and soliciting clients in breach of non-solicitation agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the strong prima facie case test, the finding of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business viability, and the balance of convenience.

The appellant tenants filed an application alleging a bad faith eviction by the respondent landlord.

The one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act ended on a holiday weekend, and the tenants filed on the next business day.

The Landlord and Tenant Board dismissed the application as untimely, finding it had no discretion to extend the limitation period.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the Board's decision was unreasonable, as statutory computation of time rules extend deadlines falling on holidays to the next business day.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their Rule 21 motion.

They argued that the action brought by the litigation trust was barred by a Bar Order issued in related class actions, specifically under the phrase 'other claims over'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the claims were independent and did not seek contribution or indemnity for damages owed to the class action plaintiffs.

The motion judge's interpretation of the Bar Order was correct and consistent with prevailing case law.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside orders of single judges that quashed his application for mandamus and allowed interveners to participate.

The applicant sought to compel three police forces to investigate alleged criminal conduct by the CN Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, affirming that mandamus does not lie to compel police to investigate specific crimes, as police discretion in such matters is not subject to judicial dictation.

The court also upheld the costs awards and strongly criticized counsel for filing voluminous, uncoordinated materials, citing the culture shift required by Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of a motions judge who had adjourned their summary judgment motion and given directions for further evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as premature.

The court held that appealing an intra-motion ruling before the summary judgment motion is finally disposed of offends the principle of continuity in judicial touch established in Hryniak and the goal of timely and cost-effective proceedings under Rule 1.04(1).