ODC 2018

The appellants appealed an Ontario Securities Commission decision finding they committed securities fraud and traded without registration.

They argued the panel breached procedural fairness by denying an adjournment, violated their Charter rights by admitting compelled testimony, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjournment refusal was reasonable, the proceedings were administrative rather than criminal so Charter protections did not apply to the compelled statements, and the panel's reasons were sufficient and correctly applied the Securities Act to a sole proprietorship.

The appellant was injured in an all-terrain vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal adjudicator found the vehicle was not an automobile and denied benefits.

The Executive Chair reconsidered the decision, cancelled it, and ordered a rehearing.

Both parties appealed the reconsideration decision to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed both appeals, finding the Executive Chair's decision to order a rehearing was reasonable given the complexity of the case and the need to resolve factual disputes regarding the vehicle's status.

The court also held that an appeal does not stay a request for reconsideration under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing its motion to stay construction of a wind turbine project and its application for judicial review.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to halt construction, alleging violations of the Renewable Energy Approval.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's letter confirming construction was unavoidable did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision reviewable under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Consequently, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify an injunction.

The tenant appealed an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of delay, lack of merit, and breach of a previous court order requiring the tenant to pay rent.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant failed to perfect his appeal in time, that the appeal lacked merit as there was no evidence the Board failed to accommodate his disability, and that the tenant breached the order to pay rent.

The appeal was dismissed and the eviction order was affirmed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a paving contract dispute.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred by not awarding prejudgment interest on its counterclaim for defective work dating back to the respondent's original invoice date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge's quantification of damages based on the cost of remedial work at a later date inherently incorporated the time value of money, and therefore denying earlier prejudgment interest was a proper exercise of discretion to avoid over-compensation.

The appellants, a paralegal and her business, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $20,000 to the respondents.

The dispute arose over legal fees retained from a settlement.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge demonstrated bias, made unsupported credibility findings, and erred in admitting and excluding certain evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The court held that the trial judge's interventions were appropriate, his credibility findings were entitled to deference, and he properly exercised his discretion regarding the admissibility of evidence.

The applicant First Nation sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Exploration granting a mining exploration permit to a corporate respondent on lands within the applicant's traditional territory.

The applicant argued the Crown failed to properly discharge its duty to consult.

The Divisional Court found that the Crown and its delegate had created clear expectations for a community meeting and a Memorandum of Understanding, but abruptly changed course without explanation to expedite the permit for commercial reasons.

The court held that the consultation process lacked genuine engagement and failed to maintain the honour of the Crown.

The application was granted, the permit was set aside, and the matter was remitted for adequate consultation.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that reduced the City's recovery of fraudulently obtained health benefits from a former employee by 50%.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding a denial of procedural fairness because the arbitrator rejected the application of the collective agreement's overpayment provision without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The Court also found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, as she erred in finding concurrent jurisdiction with the courts and misapplied the Negligence Act to reduce the recovery based on the employee's theoretical right to seek contribution from a co-fraudster.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal decision regarding losses from a house fire, arguing the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction in valuing the contents and breached procedural fairness by failing to provide written reasons for the building's depreciation rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's valuation of the contents was reasonable and did not determine legal entitlement.

The court also held that the appraisal process met procedural fairness requirements, as oral reasons were provided and written reasons were not requested.

The appellant developer appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to pay the respondent purchaser $15,000 for breach of contract.

The dispute arose after the purchaser sought to terminate a condominium purchase agreement.

The parties signed an incentive letter promising the purchaser $15,000 upon the project's closing, and later signed a mutual release.

On appeal, the developer argued the release terminated its obligations under the incentive letter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in interpreting the incentive letter, noting the release did not cover the incentive letter, and upholding the trial judge's refusal to allow the developer to raise the unpleaded release defence at trial.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on a Ministerial reference, arguing they were denied procedural fairness because the Minister's question was inaccurately conveyed to them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on a Ministerial reference is an advisory opinion that does not determine legal rights and is therefore not reviewable on procedural fairness grounds.

Furthermore, the court found that the procedural defect did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the applicants had ample opportunity to address the core issues and the outcome would not have been different.

The applicants sought a declaration that a proposed municipal fee for a fill permit was an illegal tax, and a mandamus order compelling the respondent municipality to issue the permit.

The municipality had refused to issue the permit until a fill agreement and fill management plan were finalized, which included resolving several outstanding technical and environmental issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the applicants did not yet have a clear legal right to the permit and the municipality was not under an obligation to issue it while significant issues remained unresolved.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for unnecessary use of force against a person in custody.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission applied the correct standard of review and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was warranted despite some errors by the Hearing Officer.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of two actions: one against the City of Toronto for a slip and fall on a sidewalk, and another against the TTC for a transit injury.

The appellant alleged numerous errors, primarily challenging the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the trial judge's adverse credibility findings against the appellant were entitled to deference and contained no palpable and overriding errors.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the City was not grossly negligent and that the thin-skull principle did not apply because causation was not established.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Tribunal based its decision on the appellant's dishonest reporting of pending charges on two occasions, despite the absence of other complaints regarding sexual misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable as the Registrar relies on honest reporting to monitor the industry.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring it to pay unpaid legal fees to the respondent bank.

The bank had made an arithmetic error in a mortgage discharge statement, omitting the legal fees from the final total, though they were listed in the body of the statement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the discharge of the mortgage did not extinguish the underlying contractual debt and that the appellant had not detrimentally relied on the error.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to pay interim spousal support.

The original motion was brought solely to seek the sale of the matrimonial home, and neither party had requested interim spousal support in their motion materials.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed an error of law by ordering interim spousal support without providing the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions on the issue.

The provision ordering spousal support was struck.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing her defamation claim.

The motion was brought 14 months after the merits decision was released, following a separate costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the moving party failed to establish a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time period and that the proposed appeal lacked merit, amounting to a collateral attack on the trial judge's findings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of workplace discrimination on the basis of race.

The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint because the 2009 and 2011 allegations were out of time, the 2014 termination was appropriately dealt with through a union grievance and arbitration, and there was insufficient evidence for the 2015 allegations.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, there was no denial of procedural fairness, and the Charter did not apply to private workplace interactions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its action for copyright infringement against the respondent, a former employee of a hotel.

The appellant claimed ownership of a logo used by the hotel and alleged the respondent infringed its copyright by using the logo in a website redesign and new signage.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that ownership of the logo had transferred to the hotel operator and that the respondent was not liable as she acted in the course of her employment.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the costs award, finding the trial judge erred in principle by awarding $4,250 to a self-represented litigant.

The costs award was reduced to $1,550.