ODC 2016

The appellant maternal grandparents appealed an order making their two grandchildren Crown wards.

They argued that the definitions of 'Indian' and 'native community' in the Child and Family Services Act violated s. 15 of the Charter by excluding non-status Aboriginals, and that they should have been awarded custody.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis to establish a s. 15 Charter disadvantage and upholding the trial judge's conclusion that Crown wardship with access was in the children's best interests due to concerns about the grandparents' health and ability to provide permanent care.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been reinstated by an arbitrator without back pay after a three-year delay in the arbitration decision.

The union initially sought judicial review to compel the arbitrator's reasons but abandoned the application once reasons were provided, concluding it was unlikely to succeed.

The Divisional Court found the Board's conclusion that the union acted reasonably to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellants, who were self-represented at trial, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment on the basis of procedural unfairness.

At trial, the respondent was permitted to call witnesses without having delivered a witness list in advance.

The trial judge did not advise the self-represented appellants of their right to object or request an adjournment, nor did he explain that their pleadings were not evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed in his duty to assist a self-represented litigant, which resulted in a denial of natural justice and a miscarriage of justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario regarding a freedom of information request for police records.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant's response failed to provide an arguable case or clarify the unintelligible grounds for relief.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The plaintiffs appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request for a Mareva injunction.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding the motion judge applied the correct legal test requiring a strong prima facie case and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden or the balance of convenience test.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion to stay a wrongful dismissal action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The appellant argued the master erred in considering juridical advantage and in failing to follow a similar Superior Court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the master correctly applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Van Breda regarding juridical advantage and properly exercised his discretion in weighing the factors.

The court held that the master was entitled to distinguish the prior Superior Court decision based on the unique circumstances of the case.

The self-represented plaintiffs, who are currently incarcerated, brought a motion to extend the time to deliver a motion for leave to appeal an order staying their civil action pending the disposition of criminal charges against one of the plaintiffs.

The court found that the plaintiffs had a bona fide intention to appeal, adequately explained the delay caused by their incarceration and administrative errors, and that the defendants suffered no prejudice.

The court also found that the proposed leave to appeal motion had merit, as the motion judge had not considered the high threshold required to stay a civil proceeding pending criminal charges.

The extension of time was granted, and costs were awarded to the moving party.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action for damages arising from allegedly negligent installation of vinyl siding by the respondent.

The trial judge found the appellant failed to prove negligence, noting ten years without issues and evidence of poor maintenance.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by not deciding the case on breach of contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the negligence analysis and holding that breach of contract was never pleaded or argued at trial.

The appellant spa owner appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for personal injuries sustained by the respondent.

The respondent suffered a severe facial infection after receiving electrolysis at the appellant's spa shortly after receiving dermal filler injections in the same area.

The trial judge found the appellant negligent for performing the electrolysis without adequate knowledge of the risks and for using a product no longer authorized by Health Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings on causation or negligence.

The respondent's cross-appeal on damages was also dismissed, save for an amendment to award pre-judgment interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Appeal Panel decision upholding a $17,500 costs award against him.

The costs were awarded after the applicant abandoned his third application for a paralegal license just days before the good character hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Hearing Panel retained jurisdiction to award costs despite the abandonment, properly considered the applicant's history of abandoning and reinstating applications as an abuse of process, and afforded the applicant procedural fairness.

The court fixed costs of the judicial review at $5,000.

The appellant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sued for damages.

At trial, the jury awarded $25,000 in general damages and $5,000 for future health care, but the trial judge granted the respondents' threshold motion under the Insurance Act, reducing the damages to zero.

The appellant appealed the threshold ruling, the trial judge's refusal to put the loss of income claim to the jury, and the jury charge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the threshold analysis, agreeing there was insufficient evidence to support a loss of income claim, and concluding the jury charge was appropriate.

The applicant, a reserve retailer, sought judicial review of a First Nation Council's decision to allocate tax-exempt cigarettes to another business, arguing the business was not located on the reserve.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing.

The applicant failed to show a causal relationship between the alleged prejudice and the challenged action, and the issue raised was not a serious justiciable issue affecting the public interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Director's Delegate upholding an arbitration decision that denied him Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs) under the 1994 Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Delegate's interpretation of s. 20.1 was unreasonable and that the provision violated s. 15 of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of age.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's interpretation of the regulation was reasonable and that the applicant did not have a vested right to LECBs.

The Court also upheld the Delegate's finding that s. 20.1 did not create a discriminatory distinction based on age.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they engaged in insider trading after receiving material non-public information from an administrative assistant at an investment bank.

The Commission relied on circumstantial evidence, including the proximity of telephone calls to highly profitable trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Commission's inferences were reasonable and that the use of compelled examination transcripts was procedurally fair.

The Court also upheld the sanctions, which included trading bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders.

The moving party, State Farm, brought a motion to quash a judicial review application commenced by the responding party, Waldock, regarding two interlocutory orders made by delegates of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The court granted the motion to quash the judicial review of a procedural order regarding the appeal record, finding it premature.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the judicial review of an order that pre-emptively enjoined the responding party from seeking clarification from the arbitrator, finding exceptional circumstances and a potential breach of natural justice that warranted judicial review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found she made false reports of abuse against a fellow teacher and revoked her teaching certificate.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Committee's factual findings or credibility assessments.

The court also upheld the penalty of revocation, finding it fell within the range of reasonable outcomes given the serious nature of falsely accusing a colleague of abuse.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring the respondent the legal and beneficial owner of 20% of the appellant company.

The appellants argued the respondent breached a trust agreement with his deceased father-in-law regarding a home purchase, which should block the share transfer.

The Divisional Court agreed with the application judge that the trust issue was irrelevant to the share ownership and that any claim under the trust agreement was statute-barred by limitation periods.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to set aside an order quashing its application for judicial review of a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

The motions judge had quashed the application on the grounds of prematurity because the applicant had appealed the approval to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to set aside, agreeing that the application was premature as the administrative appeal process under the Environmental Protection Act had not yet been completed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a competing union to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent construction company.

The Board had determined that the applicant's existing collective agreement did not cover carpenters and carpenters' apprentices, effectively ending the applicant's intervention in the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and correct based on the plain meaning of the agreement's recognition and jurisdiction clauses.

The applicant employer brought a motion to stay an arbitrator's interim award pending judicial review.

The employer had disciplined an employee, who grieved the discipline.

The employer subsequently withdrew the discipline and argued the arbitrator lost jurisdiction as the matter was resolved.

The arbitrator found there were remaining remedial issues and retained jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious question to be determined because the judicial review application was premature and would result in fragmentation of the administrative process.