ODC 2016

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they committed securities fraud and misrepresentation by selling nearly $19 million in securities without disclosing a highly critical financial report.

The Commission ordered significant administrative penalties and disgorgement of over $16.5 million.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the Commission's findings, concluding that the failure to disclose the report while continuing to sell securities was objectively dishonest.

The Court also affirmed that reliance is not required for a misrepresentation finding under the Securities Act and that the Commission has broad public interest jurisdiction to order disgorgement of all funds raised through non-compliance, even if not personally retained by the wrongdoers.

The appellant appealed an order from the Small Claims Court that struck out his claim against the respondent, a psychologist, based on expert witness immunity.

The appellant had sued the respondent for the return of $21,900 paid for a s. 30 Children's Law Reform Act assessment report, alleging errors, omissions, and failure to address abuse allegations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the law on expert witness immunity in Canada is unsettled, particularly regarding whether it protects an expert from a breach of contract or negligence claim by their own client for recovery of fees.

The court held that such a novel legal issue should not be determined summarily and reinstated the claim.

The appellant university appealed an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to strike the respondent student's claim for breach of contract.

The student alleged the university breached a contract by failing to return graded assignments with comments and explain a grade received in 2006-2007.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the claim lacked necessary particulars to establish the university went beyond its academic discretion.

Furthermore, the court held it was plain and obvious the claim was statute-barred, as the alleged breach occurred well over two years before the claim was commenced in 2015, and repeated internal complaints did not extend the limitation period.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision denying summary judgment on a promissory note and ordering further documentary production.

The underlying dispute involved allegations of forgery and cash payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that the conflicting evidence required a trial.

The court also dismissed the application for leave to appeal the costs order.

The Toronto Police Services Board appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to Moses and Princess Water for injuries and trauma sustained during the execution of a search warrant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding Moses, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding police used excessive force.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding Princess, setting aside her damages award because the trial judge failed to find the police liable for any cause of action against her.

The cross-appeals by Moses and Princess alleging unlawful detention and arrest were dismissed, as the police actions were deemed necessary to secure the premises during the search.

The appellant, an indirect stakeholder, appealed an order approving a plan of arrangement that reorganized the respondent corporation into a limited partnership.

The appellant sought standing to vary the plan to grant it dissenting rights, arguing its economic interests were prejudiced.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the BCE framework, only security holders whose legal rights are affected have standing to challenge a plan of arrangement.

As an indirect shareholder, the appellant had no legal right to interfere in the respondent's business affairs or circumvent the approval of the direct shareholder.

The moving parties, who were added as defendants to a slip and fall action nearly six years after the incident, sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

They argued the claim was statute-barred and the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in discovering their identity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motions judge's decision to leave the limitation period issue for trial, and noting that granting leave would cause unnecessary delay and piecemeal litigation.

The appellant telecommunications carriers appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) order approving an increase in the pole attachment rate charged by Hydro Ottawa.

The appellants argued the OEB breached procedural fairness and fettered its discretion by applying a 2005 methodology that the OEB acknowledged required review, and by refusing to hear evidence on a new methodology during the Hydro Ottawa hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB reasonably deferred the methodology issue to an ongoing province-wide policy review.

The Court held that the OEB, as master of its own procedure, afforded appropriate procedural fairness and its decisions regarding the rate adjustment and the final nature of the order were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her 100 per cent at fault for a parking lot motor vehicle accident.

The appellant had opened her car door into the path of another vehicle.

The trial judge applied Rule 19(c) of the Fault Determination Rules and found the appellant wholly responsible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error of fact and correctly applied the law.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by the appellant tenant and others regarding a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenants argued that rent increase notices were void because they did not include a city-ordered rent reduction, thereby avoiding a one-year limitation period for rebate applications.

The court found that the appeal was devoid of merit as the central legal question had already been conclusively determined against the tenants by the Court of Appeal.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a certification vote for part-time employees at Ontario community colleges.

The Board had to interpret the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 to determine which employees would be 'substantially effected' by the vote and whether the employee group was 'substantially representative' given the fluctuating workforce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and application of labour relations principles was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal which was dismissed.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $10,000, while the plaintiffs suggested $5,000 was appropriate given the motion was in writing.

The court fixed costs at $6,500 payable forthwith, considering the costs awarded on the underlying contempt motion and the merits of the leave application.

The tenant appealed a consent order from the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him for non-payment of rent.

The tenant failed to set the appeal down for a hearing, evaded service, and did not appear at the scheduled hearing despite being notified.

The tenant claimed the landlord obtained the consent order by misrepresentation regarding municipal by-law violations and a desire to renovate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the tenant's arguments, noting he had not paid rent since April 2015, and ordered immediate vacant possession to the landlord.

The Cornwall Community Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that required a 12% payment in lieu of benefits to all part-time employees, including retirees, and awarded retroactive payments back to 2007 covering expired collective agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable.

The Court also held that the arbitrator's determination of his own jurisdiction to grant retroactive remedies under expired agreements was reviewable on a reasonableness standard and was reasonable based on the Police Services Act and arbitral jurisprudence.

The employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding a former employee damages for an unpaid bonus.

The employee had resigned before the bonus payout date, and the employer relied on a policy posted on its intranet requiring active employment at the time of payout to be eligible.

The trial judge found the policy was not sufficiently drawn to the employee's attention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the communication of the policy was insufficient.

The moving party brought a motion to strike an expert affidavit filed by the respondents in an Application for Judicial Review regarding the issuance of a stone quarry licence.

The moving party argued the affidavit was inadmissible as it was not before the decision-maker.

The respondents argued the evidence was necessary to determine if the Crown met its duty to consult and accommodate.

The court deferred the issue, ordering that the admissibility of the affidavit be determined by the full panel hearing the Application to avoid jeopardizing the scheduled hearing dates.

The moving party, an elderly tenant with health challenges, brought an emergency motion to stay an eviction order obtained by the respondent housing corporation for rent arrears.

Despite being served with notice of the motion, the respondent and the sheriff executed the eviction.

The court retroactively stayed the eviction after finding the tenant had paid the outstanding amount under the Landlord and Tenant Board order.

The court maintained the stay for 45 days to allow the tenant to address ongoing rent arrears, which were disputed due to being calculated on a double-occupancy basis despite the tenant living alone.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order that dismissed her appeal from a Master's order denying leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation.

The Divisional Court found that there were no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, which involved the exercise of judicial discretion.

Furthermore, the issues raised were specific to the facts of the case and not of general importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision that denied his application for a paralegal license on the basis that he was ungovernable.

The applicant argued that the Chair of the Hearing Panel should have recused herself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the Appeal Panel lacked independence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded there was no apprehension of bias and that the tribunal's structure met the requisite degree of independence as directed by the legislature.

The applicant filed a motion in writing seeking a reconsideration of a 2014 Divisional Court decision that dismissed her appeal from a Law Society of Upper Canada appeal panel.

She relied on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, finding no jurisdiction for a panel to reconsider its earlier decision in these circumstances.