ODC 2017

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) suspending his licence without a hearing.

The suspension followed criminal charges in Florida for indecent exposure.

The Divisional Court quashed the suspension, finding the ICRC's decision unreasonable because there was no evidence that the applicant's conduct was likely to expose his patients to harm, the ICRC improperly relied on a 1994 complaint, and it failed to provide reasons for rejecting uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence and the applicant's offer of a monitoring term.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of his child with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The father sought joint custody with the child's paternal aunt, or sole custody for the aunt to adopt the child.

The father argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding his drug addiction recovery, and failed to consider the least intrusive course of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate, his credibility findings and preference for the court-appointed expert's evidence were reasonable, and he properly considered and rejected the aunt's plan of care as insufficient to protect the child.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding the individual appellant personally liable for a breach of contract regarding kitchen cabinetry work.

The trial judge had found that the contract was with the corporate appellant, but held the individual appellant personally liable because the corporate name was misspelled on the contract and the individual had claimed for the balance of the contract in his own name in a cross-claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by piercing the corporate veil without evidence of fraudulent or improper conduct, and by drawing an improper inference from the pleadings that contradicted his own factual findings.

The moving party school board brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to dismiss the responding party union's application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought review of arbitration awards concerning a wrongful dismissal grievance.

The single judge held that unless the determination of a motion to dismiss for delay is so clear as to leave no doubt, it should be decided by the full panel hearing the application.

Finding the issues were not clear enough for a single judge to determine, the court adjourned the motion to the full panel.

The appellant appealed an order requiring her to attend an examination in aid of execution, arguing the Master erred because she had filed for bankruptcy two days prior, triggering an automatic stay under s. 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent argued the underlying default judgment declared the debt survived bankruptcy under s. 178(1).

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that s. 178(1) applies to discharge, not the automatic stay, and the Master erred in granting the order while the stay was in effect.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario to disqualify them from a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process for a major infrastructure project.

The applicants were disqualified because they failed to include a required Accounting Firm Letter (AFL) in their submission.

The court held that the disqualification decision was not subject to judicial review as it was not an exercise of a statutory power of decision.

Even if it were reviewable, the court found that the respondents did not breach any duty of fairness and their decision to strictly enforce the RFQ requirements was reasonable.

The appellant tenants appealed three orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board authorizing an above-guideline rent increase for municipal taxes and charges.

The landlord had applied for the increase based on fees paid for a Rental Housing Licence and Electrical Safety Authority inspections required by a municipal by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions that the fees qualified as municipal charges and were not exempt were reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Board's determination that it lacked discretion to amortize the rent increase over a period longer than 12 months.

Although the tenants received inadequate notice and disclosure initially, the Court found this procedural unfairness was cured by the Board's subsequent review hearings.

Canada Post Corporation applied for judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a temporary employee dismissed for failing to demonstrate reasonable availability.

The arbitrator found the dismissal unjustified, introducing a requirement for corporate prejudice.

The Divisional Court held that while the arbitrator failed to follow established arbitral jurisprudence and impermissibly amended the collective agreement by requiring corporate prejudice, his ultimate conclusion that the dismissal was unreasonable remained defensible on the facts.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, with one judge dissenting.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders arising from summary judgment motions, while also commencing appeals in the Court of Appeal.

Noting potential jurisdictional issues regarding whether the underlying orders were final or interlocutory, the Divisional Court adjourned the motions for leave to appeal and ordered the parties to provide supplementary written submissions on the jurisdictional question.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her wrongful dismissal claim.

She was terminated during her six-month probationary period for failing to comply with a scent-free policy and altering patent applications contrary to instructions.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons and failed to consider relevant evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient to explain that the employer acted in good faith, and there was no palpable and overriding error in the assessment of the evidence.

The appellant law firm appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim against the respondent.

The appellant had sued the respondent for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation (later characterized as defamation) over a disputed document report the respondent authored under a pseudonym, which the appellant's former client allegedly used to accuse the appellant of forgery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of a causal connection between the report and the former client's actions.

Following an appeal where the main appeal was dismissed but the co-appellants successfully appealed a personal costs order, the Divisional Court determined the costs of the appeal.

The respondents were awarded $115,000 in partial indemnity costs for the main appeal.

The co-appellants were awarded $58,406.50 in partial indemnity costs for their successful appeal, payable by all respondents, as the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant builder appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking its claim for $11,300 against the respondent purchasers for the construction of a deck.

The motion judge found an irreconcilable ambiguity in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale regarding whether the deck was included in the purchase price and applied the doctrine of contra proferentem against the builder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the contract and denying the appellant's request to adduce fresh evidence.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction after her sons were arrested in the unit for possessing an illegal handgun and drugs.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness when the Board proceeded with the hearing in her absence after she left to seek medical attention for a toothache without waiting for a ruling on her adjournment request.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice in proceeding in her absence and no error in the Board's conclusion that possessing an illegal handgun impaired the safety and reasonable enjoyment of other tenants.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant regarding the deemed undertaking rule, the court considered the issue of costs.

The court had previously indicated a preliminary view that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty and public importance of the issue.

The appellant sought $12,000 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs on the appeal but sought to retain the motion judge's costs award.

The Divisional Court confirmed its preliminary conclusion, ordering no costs for the original motion, the motion for leave to appeal, or the appeal itself, emphasizing the public benefit of clarifying a novel point of practice.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision which held that the respondent insured was entitled to interest at 2% per month on overdue statutory accident benefits.

The insured's accident occurred after the New Regulation (O. Reg. 34/10) came into effect, but her policy was issued before that date.

The Divisional Court found the Delegate's decision unreasonable, holding that the clear wording of the New Regulation applied to all accidents occurring on or after September 1, 2010, rebutting any presumption against interference with vested rights.

The application for judicial review was granted and the Delegate's decision was quashed.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to strike a jury notice and granting the respondent's motion for late delivery of a jury notice in a consolidated action involving a denied life insurance claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly considered the test for late jury notices, including the circumstances of delay and lack of prejudice.

The Court also upheld the finding that the respondent's claim, while framed as seeking a declaration of entitlement to a $400,000 death benefit, was in pith and substance a claim for monetary damages, and therefore a jury notice was permissible.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $10,400 in damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale related to property repairs and water damage.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for how the damage amounts were calculated, which claims were accepted or rejected, and what specific repairs were required under the contract.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and a new trial was ordered on the issue of damages before a different deputy judge.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination complaint against the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The HRTO had dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of her complaint regarding social assistance eligibility and shelter allowance had already been appropriately dealt with by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decision was reasonable and that the applicant's benefits were assessed based on her own application and a reasonable interpretation of the regulations, not discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant physician, found guilty of professional misconduct for inadequate record keeping and sterile technique, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect his appeal until the Court of Appeal released its decision in a separate case involving sexual abuse penalties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pending decision would not affect the appellant's case, as his misconduct did not involve sexual abuse, and the disciplinary committee's reference to the other case was not central to its penalty decision.

The appellant was ordered to perfect his appeal within 30 days.