ODC 2017

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim ruling by the Discipline Committee of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, which had deferred a decision on a motion to dismiss charges until the end of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court emphasized its reluctance to fragment administrative proceedings and noted that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to control its own process and defer its decision until a full evidentiary record was available.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant for breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy after the defendant posted an intimate video of the plaintiff online.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside the default judgment.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal the order setting aside the default judgment.

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 test to set aside a default judgment, and concluding that a trial on the merits would be of general importance to the development of the law.

The university brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a faculty association.

The association sought to challenge the university's decision to increase the compensation of two senior administrators during a statutory wage freeze under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the compensation decision had a sufficient public element to be subject to judicial review, that the association had public interest standing, and that it was not plain and obvious that the Act barred the application.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of sexual abuse and revoking her license.

The finding of sexual abuse was based on a romantic kiss with a vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the doctor-patient relationship had ended prior to the kiss and that the Committee breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a letter from the patient after the close of evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reversal of the burden of proof, and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the extensive history of boundary violations and professional misconduct.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of two Landlord and Tenant Board orders terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant for non-payment of rent.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's appeal raised no questions of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The court also noted that the appeal appeared to be a delaying tactic, as the tenant had not paid rent for several months.

The motion to quash was granted, the stay of enforcement was lifted, and the landlord was awarded costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring them to be a single employer bound by a collective agreement and liable for damages.

The applicants argued procedural unfairness and challenged the Board's earlier certification and grievance decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it to be an improper collateral attack on previous Board decisions.

The Court held that the Board's procedures were fair and its calculation of damages, based on established principles for breaches of union security provisions in the construction industry, was reasonable.

The appellant sold her condominium to the respondent but failed to vacate the premises on closing.

After obtaining a writ of possession, the respondent had the appellant's personal property moved to storage and subsequently disposed of it to a junk dealer.

The appellant brought a claim for conversion, which the trial judge dismissed on the basis that the appellant had abandoned her goods and failed to prove their value with expert evidence.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in finding abandonment, as the appellant had communicated her desire for the return of her goods and the factors for abandonment were not met.

The court also held the trial judge erred in failing to assess damages despite the lack of expert evidence, as a substantial loss was demonstrated.

The appeal was allowed and damages for conversion were assessed at $25,000, less moving and storage costs.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court refusing leave to appeal two costs orders.

The appellant argued the leave motion should have been heard orally rather than in writing.

The court held that a single judge of the Divisional Court does not have inherent or statutory jurisdiction to set aside an order of another single judge of the same court.

The motion was adjourned to a panel of the Divisional Court, which has the statutory authority to set aside a motion order of a single judge.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding him $500 for a Charter breach during a traffic stop, seeking higher damages and appealing the dismissal of his claim against the OIPRD.

The respondent police cross-appealed the finding that the traffic tickets were motivated by race.

The Divisional Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by basing the racial motivation finding solely on the officer's demeanour.

The court found no Charter breach and upheld the dismissal of the claim against the OIPRD, as there was no evidence of bad faith to overcome statutory immunity.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a $30,000 costs order made against him following a family law motion regarding child custody.

The applicant argued there was conflicting case law on awarding costs in child-related issues and that the motions judge erred by not considering the respondent's offer to settle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the respondent was clearly successful on the main issue of custody.

The City of Ottawa sought costs of a motion brought by the appellants to set aside an order refusing leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The appellants argued they should be excused from paying costs as public interest litigants.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the motion to set aside was totally without merit and effectively sought to reargue the leave motion, which did not constitute public interest litigation.

Costs were awarded to the City of Ottawa fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Counsel sought clarification on whether a previously granted stay pending appeal included a stay of further proceedings relating to costs in the Family Branch.

The court clarified that the stay applied to any further steps arising out of the lower court's endorsements, including making submissions on costs.

The court reasoned that it would be a more efficient use of court time and resources to hear the perfected appeal first, as a successful appeal would likely vitiate any costs award.