ODC 2016

The Applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, which declined to extend the time for service of a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing on two police officers beyond the six-month period under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached procedural fairness by not providing the Applicants with the officers' submissions or an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the Board's decision unreasonable for failing to consider the causes of delay holistically.

The Board's decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim.

The plaintiff, a former CSIS employee, sued for wrongful dismissal after his top-secret security clearance was revoked and his employment terminated.

The defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to use the grievance process under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting case law and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision regarding the court's jurisdiction over the dispute.

The moving party husband sought leave to appeal an order restraining him from depleting assets, requiring a certificate of pending litigation, and ordering him to post a $4 million letter of credit under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act.

He also sought a stay of the order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to order the posting of a bond or letter of credit, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of that specific relief.

The court also granted a stay of the requirement to post the letter of credit pending the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal an order dismissing its motion to oppose confirmation of a Master's report in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff also sought an order requiring the defendants to repay monies obtained out of court pursuant to the report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiff had an intention to appeal and an explanation for the delay, the defendants would suffer prejudice, the appeal lacked merit as it attacked factual findings, and the justice of the case did not favour the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal two orders: one dismissing her motion to vary an earlier order and awarding costs, and another staying her action pending payment of outstanding costs orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary orders.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the defendant.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for property damages against a former tenant for lack of jurisdiction.

The Deputy Judge had ruled that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law, as section 89(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires a tenant to be in possession of the rental unit for the LTB to have jurisdiction over damage claims.

Since the tenant had vacated the unit, the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction.

The court also found the Deputy Judge made a palpable and overriding error in finding that a second LTB hearing had occurred where damages could have been addressed.

The Federation of Rental-Housing Providers of Ontario intervened.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Small Claims Court.

The appellants commenced a medical negligence action in 2015 against the respondents, which was dismissed on summary judgment as res judicata because it duplicated a 2011 action that had been struck as statute-barred.

The appellants appealed the summary judgment dismissal.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Receiving no submissions from the appellants, the court dismissed the appeal, finding it was a clear attempt to relitigate claims, including fraudulent concealment, that were finally disposed of in the prior proceeding.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $10,047.96 for defective hardwood flooring installation.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred by finding negligence without expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or credibility assessments.

The court also held that expert evidence was not required to establish the standard of care for non-technical matters such as squeaky floors.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent for the installation of two heating systems in her duplex.

The appellant argued the respondent's quote was for two furnaces, not one, and alleged the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors, failed to apply the Consumer Protection Act, and denied her a fair trial as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the quote was for a single furnace was supported by evidence.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of trial fairness, noting that while the trial judge could have managed the process better, the appellant was able to present her case.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision finding that the parties had entered into an oral agreement whereby the respondent was a 50% beneficial shareholder in the appellant corporation and was entitled to a $2.8 million shareholder loan in exchange for his assistance in restructuring a distressed business.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact and erred in granting an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the trial judge's factual findings regarding the oral agreement and credibility assessments.

The Court further held that the trial judge did not err in principle in granting the oppression remedy, as the respondent met the definition of a complainant and the remedy accorded with his reasonable expectations.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment regarding unpaid fees, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $7,500 in partial indemnity costs, while the appellant argued for $1,500.

The Divisional Court held that the requested amount was excessive given the lack of complexity, the similarity of issues to the trial, and the expectations of parties in Small Claims Court appeals.

Costs were fixed at $2,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal an order discharging a Certificate of Pending Litigation and setting aside an interim injunction was previously dismissed.

The defendants sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,852.87.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was excessive and proposed $1,500 payable in the cause.

The court found the defendants' claimed amount reasonable and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs fixed at $3,852.87 within 30 days.

The applicants sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's refusal to process their application to close and purchase an unopened road allowance abutting their waterfront property.

The applicants alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith, claiming the municipality favoured their neighbours' competing application and failed to prevent unauthorized alterations to the land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the municipality's decision to refuse the sale until the competing interests of all abutting owners were resolved was reasonable.

The court concluded there was no legal right to compel the municipality to sell the road allowance and found no evidence of bad faith.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding him $750 for a defective roof installation.

He argued the trial judge erred by allowing a representative of the shingle manufacturer to give opinion evidence without filing an expert report or being formally qualified as an expert.

The Divisional Court held that Small Claims Court judges have discretion under section 27 of the Courts of Justice Act to admit opinion evidence without a prior report.

However, the Court found the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by discounting the witness's $2,000 repair estimate by 75%.

The appeal was allowed in part, and damages were increased to $2,250.

The respondent sought leave to appeal two costs decisions.

The motion judge had declined to award costs against the applicant, who withdrew her spousal support application, due to her inability to pay.

The motion judge also declined to order costs personally against the applicant's former counsel, finding the application was not frivolous or vexatious.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the issues did not meet the high threshold for leave under Rule 62.02 and the motion judge's discretionary decisions were entitled to deference.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review seeking $1,800,000 in damages.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(1) considering dismissal of the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant filed submissions expressing dissatisfaction with the court.

The court dismissed the application, noting that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to grant damages on an application for judicial review and that this was one of approximately 15 proceedings the applicant had commenced in the last three years.

The plaintiff bank sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of its summary judgment motion for unpaid credit card and line of credit debts.

The plaintiff argued the motion judge erred by allowing the defendant to rely on unpleaded defences of non est factum and unconscionability.

The Divisional Court found there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal because the issues did not involve matters of general or public importance extending beyond the immediate parties.

The moving party, a veterinarian, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario, which found him guilty of professional misconduct based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

He argued that he did not enter into the settlement agreement voluntarily due to stress and duress from his former counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party did not form an intention to appeal within the relevant period, his explanation for the delay was unreasonable, and the appeal lacked merit as there was no medical evidence to support his claim of duress.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that significantly reduced the property tax assessments for a grocery store property.

The Board had found the current value of the property based on its development potential but then reduced the assessment to a fraction of that value by applying a general grocery store valuation model to achieve 'equity'.

MPAC argued the Board erred in its interpretation and application of the equity provisions in the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation of the law raised sufficient doubt as to its legal correctness and involved an important question of law meriting the court's attention.

The plaintiffs and defendants both sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding an alleged global price-fixing conspiracy in the lithium-ion battery industry.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal the denial of certification for claims relating to unlawful means conspiracy and umbrella purchasers.

The defendants sought leave to appeal the certification of the civil remedy claim under s. 36 of the Competition Act.

The Divisional Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions and that the issues merited appellate attention.

The defendants' motion for leave to appeal was denied, as they failed to establish conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.