ODC 2015

The appellants appealed an order appointing a supervisor/receiver for their restaurant business and adding them as respondents in the proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had a reasonable basis to appoint a supervisor to preserve and value the business, given unanswered allegations of fraud and apparent contravention of an earlier order in oppression proceedings.

The court noted the motion judge remained seized of the matter for further directions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) dismissing his privacy complaint against the Peel Regional Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the IPC's refusal to investigate a privacy complaint is a legislative function protected by parliamentary privilege.

Alternatively, the Court held that the IPC reasonably concluded the police disclosure to the Children's Aid Society was justified under the duty to report a child in need of protection pursuant to section 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant, a corporate landlord, sought judicial review to quash the City of Waterloo's Residential Rental Housing Licensing By-law.

The applicant argued the licensing fees constituted an ultra vires indirect tax and that the by-law's application to townhouses but not apartment buildings constructively discriminated against families contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the fees were validly enacted to fund the licensing program and did not constitute a tax.

The Court also held the by-law did not discriminate on the basis of family status, as it targeted specific types of dwellings rather than any protected group.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board upholding an eviction notice.

The appellants argued that the Board erred in finding that the evidence of 'V.C.' was irrelevant because he was not an owner and could not have entered into a three-year lease.

They submitted that the definition of 'landlord' under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 includes any person who permits occupancy.

The appellants conceded that the Divisional Court could not grant the damages they sought, and that even if the matter were remitted for a re-hearing, the Board lacked jurisdiction to award those damages.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for its electricians.

The applicant challenged the Board's use of a 'bright line' test to determine the bargaining unit based on employees working on a Saturday filing date, the Board's finding that a union organizer's conduct did not violate s. 76 of the Labour Relations Act, and the wording of the ballot question.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The court determined the costs of an appeal regarding the passing of accounts where success was divided.

The respondent was substantially successful on the compensation appeal, while the appellant was successful on the costs appeal, avoiding approximately $45,000 in personal costs.

As a result, no costs of the appeal were awarded.

However, because the appellant had made an offer to settle the costs issue on the same basis as the court's finding, the appellant was awarded $1,500 for the expense of making written costs submissions.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for breach of contract regarding the value of shares in a startup insurance brokerage.

The trial judge had determined the fair market value of the shares based on net earnings, relying on an unsworn affidavit submitted after trial, rather than reopening the trial for proper valuation evidence.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge erred by failing to reopen the trial to adduce objective evidence of fair market value, as the contractual provision relied upon did not apply to an early termination.

The appeal was granted and the quantification of damages was remitted to the trial judge.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission refusing his license to work as the Clerk of Scales.

The Tribunal found the applicant accepted cash gifts from jockeys and failed to follow breathalyzer protocols, concluding there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with integrity.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order regarding the waiver of solicitor-client privilege and document production.

By the time the appeal was heard, the trial had already commenced.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that the trial judge is best positioned to determine issues of privilege, fairness, and production mid-trial.

The appellants (defendants), an accounting firm, appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.

The respondents (plaintiffs) had previously settled a fee dispute with the appellants and signed a mutual release.

Years later, the respondents discovered that a 'butterfly transaction' structured by the appellants resulted in a massive tax liability, and they sued for professional negligence.

The appellants argued the mutual release barred the claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the negligence claim was unknown and not in the contemplation of the parties when the release was executed, and therefore the release did not bar the action.

The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's order lifting a stay of proceedings and refusing to dismiss the plaintiff's 18-year-old action for long-term disability benefits for delay.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors, including incorrectly finding the appellant had consented to the stay and failing to recognize the prejudice caused by the delay.

The Court concluded the delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and created a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible, and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's action.

The appellants appealed three decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding a sanctions hearing.

After a merits hearing found the appellants contravened the Securities Act, the terms of the presiding panel members expired.

The OSC appointed a new panel for the sanctions hearing.

The appellants argued the original panel's terms were deemed extended under s. 4.3 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OSC's interpretation of its own procedures and the SPPA—that the merits and sanctions hearings were separate—was reasonable.

The court also upheld the admission of merits hearing transcripts and the ultimate sanctions imposed.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the respondent's claim under Rule 21.

The respondent had pleaded the common employer doctrine against a group of corporate defendants and their operator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the application of the common employer doctrine to operators of a group of common employers is a developing area of law, and it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The court also found the claim was pleaded with sufficient particularity.

The moving parties sought a stay of an order scheduling an election for the Board of Directors of a not-for-profit corporation pending their appeal.

The moving parties, whose memberships were challenged, argued they were improperly excluded from voting.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm in the loss of the right to vote, the balance of convenience strongly favoured allowing the election to proceed.

The corporation had been without an election since 2003 due to protracted litigation, and the potential disenfranchisement of a small number of voters did not outweigh the need for a functioning board.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario appealed a motion judge's refusal to grant a sealing order for Minutes of Settlement entered into with the respondents in 2001.

The appellant sought to rely on the settlement in its defence of new actions brought by the respondents while preserving its confidentiality.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to recognize settlement privilege as an important interest under the Sierra Club test.

The Court held that the appellant had not waived privilege and that the salutary effects of protecting settlement privilege outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The revocation was based on the appellant's criminal conviction for sexual assault against an employee and his failure to disclose his interest in a property management business on his renewal applications for over a decade.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's conclusions regarding the appellant's character and the necessity of revocation to protect the public were reasonable.

The tenant appealed a review order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that denied her request for an extension of time to set aside an ex parte eviction order.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by failing to consider all the mandatory factors under Rule 15.6 of its Rules of Practice, specifically the length of the delay and the prejudice to the parties.

The Court noted the delay was only two days and the tenant, who is on permanent disability and resides in subsidized housing, would suffer severe prejudice if evicted, whereas the landlord would suffer minimal prejudice.

The Court set aside the Board's decision, granted the extension of time, and stayed the eviction order pending a hearing on the merits.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing his motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had found that there were too many facts in dispute regarding the plaintiff's fitness to return to work to resolve the matter summarily.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the appeal raised issues of public importance beyond the interests of the individual parties.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order removing their counsel of record.

The motion judge had removed the plaintiffs' counsel based on an unsworn, un-noticed motion by an individual defendant alleging a conflict of interest, and subsequently refused to consent to the release of the hearing transcript.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to the lack of notice, evidence, and opportunity to be heard, and noting that the issues of right to counsel, natural justice, and access to court transcripts are of fundamental importance to the administration of justice.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sued the police for negligence, Charter breaches, and public misfeasance after being victims of a drive-by shooting, alleging the police failed to arrest the known shooter.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions between two judges on similar pleadings and reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's novel approach to determining police liability.