ODC 2019

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a contract for the purchase of a bicycle and related services.

The trial judge had ordered specific performance and rescission as remedies.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief, such as specific performance or rescission, unless it is in the form of a money judgment or the return of personal property within its monetary limit.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the equitable remedies and substituting a money judgment of $16.97 for discounted accessories.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to caution her.

The ICRC had found the applicant failed to attend the hospital to assess a decompensating patient.

The Divisional Court quashed the HPARB decision and set aside the ICRC decision, finding that the ICRC fundamentally misstated the medical records.

The contemporaneous records showed the patient was stable and resting comfortably, not decompensating or in crushing pain as the ICRC had concluded.

The HPARB's deference to a decision based on an unreasonable finding of fact was itself unreasonable.

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe head injury after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs sought to extend the time to set the action down for a non-jury trial to assess damages, while the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, and the decision was upheld on appeal.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit bifurcation of a non-jury trial without consent.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 did not abolish the court's inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials in exceptional cases without consent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's inability to work was due to his personality rather than his compensable chronic pain disorder, basing this on negative credibility findings.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable because it substituted its own opinion for uncontroverted medical evidence and failed to account for the Board's own policy describing the symptoms of the applicant's condition.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant insurers applied for judicial review of an Umpire's decision under s. 128(3) of the Insurance Act regarding the value of a loss following a house fire.

The Umpire valued the Actual Cash Value at $338,800, which significantly exceeded both the insured's appraisal of $210,000 and the insurer's appraisal of $185,000.

The Divisional Court found the Umpire's decision unreasonable as it exceeded the range of possible acceptable outcomes and lacked reasons to justify the departure from the policy provisions.

The decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a new Umpire.

The appellants, former senior executives of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decisions finding they engaged in a massive securities fraud and imposing significant sanctions, including disgorgement and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to account for Chinese business and cultural practices (guanxi) when determining their intent to defraud, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias by the panel chair, and challenged the sanctions as excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Ontario securities law overrides cultural practices for reporting issuers, the bias claim was unfounded, and the sanctions were reasonable given the enormity of the fraud and the need for deterrence.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from statements made during a local union election.

The court found that the election of an official to a local union is a private matter and not a matter of public interest under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also noted that the statements, which included allegations of criminal conduct and vulgar language, were not the type of expression worthy of protection.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, previously disciplined for unauthorized use of the title 'Doctor', brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside the Divisional Court's prior decision upholding her discipline.

She alleged fraud and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the College's internal procedures for referring matters to discipline.

She also sought to disqualify the College's counsel, and a third party sought leave to intervene.

The Divisional Court dismissed all motions, finding no fraud, no procedural unfairness, and that the fresh evidence would not have altered the original outcome.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division upholding a finding that he failed to co-operate with a Law Society investigation into his firm's referral practices.

The appellant argued that his delay in providing financial records was due to confusion and misunderstanding, and that the Appeal Division interpreted the concept of 'good faith' too narrowly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Division reasonably concluded that good faith requires more than an absence of bad faith, and that ignorance of professional obligations or negligence in fulfilling them does not constitute good faith.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Physician Payment Review Board which found that five claims submitted by a physician were not stale-dated.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board has jurisdiction to determine the true basis for a denial of claims, its finding that the claims were not denied under s. 18(3) of the Health Insurance Act was unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and a declaration was issued that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review decisions made under s. 18(3).

The appellant brought motions to set aside the orders of a motion judge, who had dismissed its motions to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of its Small Claims Court appeals.

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with a previous order requiring it to order full trial transcripts.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's decision, rejecting the self-represented appellant's argument that she misunderstood her obligations or was denied a fair hearing.

The motions were dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an application for certification.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought reconsideration by the Board under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the conflicting Board decisions raised important policy issues regarding the interpretation of its home statute, and that reconsideration offered an adequate alternative remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as premature.

The moving party sought an adjournment of a request for reconsideration on the basis that transcripts from the cross-examination of two affiants were not yet available.

The respondent objected, arguing the affidavits were irrelevant and the moving party had not moved expeditiously.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondent, finding that the affidavits in question addressed issues that were either already resolved or irrelevant to the reconsideration request.

The request for an adjournment was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant appeared before the court to address his conduct in advancing multiple applications regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother.

During the hearing, the applicant was belligerent, disrespectful, and repeatedly interrupted the judge, leading to a finding of contempt in the face of the court.

The court sentenced the applicant to three days of time served.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court ordered that the applicant be prohibited from commencing further proceedings related to the 2006 incident without prior judicial permission.

The court also dismissed the applicant's latest application under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Union and the City both brought applications for judicial review of an arbitrator's awards concerning the discharge of an employee.

The Union challenged the arbitrator's finding that the employee breached the collective agreement by failing to provide medical certificates, arguing the relevant provision only applied to employees eligible for the illness or injury plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Union's application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation reasonable.

The City challenged the arbitrator's remedy awards, arguing it was denied natural justice when the arbitrator excluded evidence of the employee's pre-2012 absenteeism based on a prior settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court granted the City's application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement was unreasonable and prevented the City from fully presenting its case on the viability of the employment relationship.

The matter of remedy was remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing.

The appellant purchased a three-year after-market vehicle warranty from the respondent.

When the appellant sought to renew the warranty, the respondent refused.

The appellant sued in Small Claims Court, where the trial judge found the renewal provision unenforceable because it lacked certainty regarding price and term.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that the renewal clause was merely an agreement to agree and unenforceable without an objective standard or formula to determine the renewal terms.

The appellants' home was destroyed by fire and rebuilt by the respondent contractor, paid through the appellants' insurer.

The final insurance cheque of $24,828.48 was made payable only to the appellants, who kept the funds.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court for breach of contract and won.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding they owed the funds to the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the final payment was intended to cover the respondent's approved final invoice.

The applicant housing co-operative brought a motion to quash the respondent member's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The co-operative argued the appeal did not disclose a question of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the member raised sufficient legal issues regarding procedural fairness and the application of the Residential Tenancies Act to warrant a full hearing before a panel.

The member was ordered to continue paying housing charges pending the appeal.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the executive officer of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care terminating its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program due to overbilling.

The pharmacy argued the executive officer only had the power to suspend, not terminate, privileges under the statute, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the executive officer's decision to revoke privileges was reasonable, within her authority, and procedurally fair.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decision regarding a grievance for a poisoned work environment.

The GSB found that the grievor's rights were violated but concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress, stating the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) was the appropriate forum.

The applicant argued the GSB's decision was unreasonable because it simultaneously found the employer's conduct fell within the WSIA's 'employment function' mental stress exclusion while directing the grievor to the WSIA scheme.

The Divisional Court agreed, allowed the application, and remitted the matter back to the same GSB arbitrator to properly determine whether the exclusion applied.