ODC 2019

The appellant employer appealed the dismissal of its motions for summary judgment in three wrongful dismissal actions.

The employer argued that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement prior to the commencement of the actions.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in law by failing to analyze whether the parties had agreed on the essential terms of the settlement.

The Court concluded that the parties had reached an agreement on all essential terms, including the payment of legal fees, and intended to resolve the matters.

The appeal was allowed, summary judgment was granted, and the actions were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her motion to set aside an administrative dismissal for delay.

The appellant had commenced a Small Claims action but later retained counsel who commenced a Superior Court action and intended to transfer the Small Claims action.

The Small Claims action was dismissed for delay.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge erred in law by concluding that a motion to transfer demonstrated a deliberate decision not to advance the litigation, by considering the appellant's potential claim against her former counsel, and by finding that the loss of a limitation defence constituted prejudice caused by the delay.

The dismissal was set aside and the action transferred to the Superior Court.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it breached its duty to accommodate a disabled employee.

The employee, who could only work part-time, had been permitted to remain in the full-time bargaining unit for years, receiving better benefits.

The City eventually transferred him to the part-time unit.

The arbitrator held this transfer was discriminatory absent a change in circumstances or undue hardship.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable and inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's ruling in Orillia Hospital, which established that requiring work in exchange for compensation is a bona fide occupational requirement.

The arbitration award was quashed and the grievance dismissed.

The moving party landlord brought a motion to quash the respondent tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order due to delay and failure to pay rent for 20 months.

The tenant had recently perfected the appeal but claimed he did not receive notice of the motion to quash.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal for delay since it was now perfected.

However, given the admitted 20 months of rent arrears, the court ordered the tenant to pay $5,000 to the landlord as a condition of proceeding with the appeal.

The applicant employee was terminated for theft of time.

His union grieved the termination, but the arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The union did not seek judicial review.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review on his own behalf.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the general rule of union exclusivity applied.

Although the collective agreement gave the employee the right to pursue arbitration independently, he did not exercise that right, and therefore could not claim standing under the exceptional circumstances doctrine.

The appellant sought to appeal an order refusing a stay of summary judgment.

The Divisional Court held that under s. 71(3) of the Construction Lien Act, no appeal lies from an interlocutory order.

Citing Court of Appeal precedent, the court confirmed that an order refusing a stay of summary judgment is procedural and therefore interlocutory.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding $142,553.33 to the respondent subcontractor in a construction lien action.

The appellant argued the respondent abandoned the project when faced with a payment dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent had fully performed its obligations and did not abandon the contract, but rather stopped work due to the appellant's material breach in refusing to pay.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board awarding the tenants rent abatement for a rodent infestation.

The landlords argued the Board erred in its definitions of landlord and tenant, and in finding they failed to meet their maintenance obligations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's definitions and holding that the Board's conclusions regarding the infestation and maintenance obligations were unappealable findings of fact or mixed fact and law.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of a nurse who misappropriated narcotics from the respondent hospital.

The arbitrator found that the nurse was addicted to narcotics and would not have engaged in the misconduct 'but for' her addiction, yet dismissed the grievance.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the arbitrator unreasonably applied an outdated legal test for prima facie discrimination rather than the established three-part test confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The award was set aside and the grievance remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicant land surveyor sought a stay of a discipline panel decision revoking his licence and a stay of the publication of the decision pending his appeal.

Applying the three-part test for a stay, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the proportionality of the penalty, and that the balance of convenience favoured staying the licence revocation to prevent irreparable harm to his practice.

However, the court declined to stay the publication of the decision, noting the open court principle and the fact that the applicant had already disclosed the decision to third parties.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his certificate of registration by the Discipline Committee.

He had admitted to incompetence and professional misconduct, including boundary issues and poor clinical care.

The appellant argued the Committee ignored his prospects for rehabilitation and over-emphasized his disciplinary history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's conclusion that the appellant lacked insight and posed a serious risk to the public was reasonable and justified the revocation.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle from the respondent's father in a private sale after seeing an advertisement claiming the vehicle had a 'new' engine.

The engine failed shortly after purchase, and the appellant sued for the cost of repairs, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breaches of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact and no errors of law.

The court confirmed that the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to private transactions between individuals who are not in the business of selling vehicles, and the facts did not support a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his complaints of discrimination and reprisal against the Middlesex-London Health Unit.

The complaints arose from a student practicum and a subsequent unsuccessful job application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions reasonable and rejecting the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, bias, and Charter violations.

The court held that the Tribunal properly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the legal tests for discrimination and reprisal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatric report prepared after the Director's decision, which was admissible under s. 64(1) of O. Reg. 222/98.

The Tribunal also misapprehended medical imaging evidence regarding the appellant's physical condition and failed to consider medical opinions relating to his depression.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for a rehearing.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that rejected its application to terminate a tenancy for demolition under s. 50(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, but granted it for extensive renovations under s. 50(1)(c).

The landlord argued the extensive work, which reconfigured the unit but kept its outer boundaries intact, constituted a demolition.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable to distinguish renovation from demolition based on whether the tenant could exercise a right of first refusal to move back into the unit.

The Court also found the Board had jurisdiction to amend the application to grant relief under s. 50(1)(c).

The parties appeared before the Divisional Court and requested an adjournment of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board concerning a $15,000 damages claim.

Citing proportionality and the inefficient use of judicial resources, the court proposed deciding the appeal on a written record rather than reconvening for oral argument.

The parties consented, and the court issued a procedural order setting a schedule for the exchange of written materials and costs submissions.

The moving party successfully brought a motion to quash the responding party's appeal of an interlocutory order from the Small Claims Court.

The moving party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a settlement offer made prior to the motion.

The court found that the moving party obtained a result as favourable as the terms of her offer and awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $1,550.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order denying its request to file an affidavit as part of its record in an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The applicant argued that the affidavit was necessary to show the Board's findings of fact were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law by the motion judge, who was bound by established precedent that restricts the admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The appellant appealed an order regarding a charging order under the Solicitors Act to the Divisional Court, arguing the monetary value was under $50,000.

The Divisional Court held that a charging order is a final order and the appellant failed to prove the value was under $50,000, as the garnishments exceeded $200,000.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicants, graduate students and teaching assistants at York University, sought judicial review of a University Tribunal decision disciplining them for misconduct during a legal strike.

The Tribunal had assumed jurisdiction under the Student Code.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the essential character of the dispute was labour-related and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the Labour Relations Act and the Back to Class Act.

The Court also found exceptional circumstances to hear the judicial review despite the applicants not exhausting internal appeals, and noted the Tribunal's process was procedurally unfair.