ODC 2020

The moving party withdrew its motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Nishikawa.

The Divisional Court awarded costs of the withdrawn motion to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to the respondent.

The moving party, Simon Miller, brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Engelking J. dated August 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $3,361.75.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two arbitration awards concerning the termination of an occasional teacher.

In the first award, the arbitrator found the termination lacked just cause but ordered damages in lieu of reinstatement without prior notice to the parties.

In the second award, the arbitrator calculated the damages, including deductions for mitigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the union should have raised its natural justice concerns regarding the first award with the arbitrator before proceeding to the damages hearing, as the arbitrator was not functus officio.

The court also found the arbitrator's mitigation analysis reasonable, distinguishing the facts from established appellate jurisprudence.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the respondent employer's decision to close its Windsor plant.

The union argued that the plant closure violated a 'sole sourcing' promise made by the employer in exchange for wage concessions.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it relied on an improper inference drawn from rejected proposed contract language, failing to consider the overall context of the negotiations.

The application was granted, the arbitrator's decision was quashed, and the grievance was remitted back to the arbitrator for a fresh determination.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision to substitute a 30-day suspension for the dismissal of a flight attendant who had unlatched refreshment trolleys during a flight.

The employer argued the arbitrator's reasoning was illogical and failed to address safety concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, justified, and transparent under the Vavilov standard, as the arbitrator reasonably concluded the misconduct was not as grave as the employer believed and lacked malice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision granting a union grievance regarding overtime pay for truck drivers.

The arbitrator found the employer did not qualify for the 60-hour overtime threshold under the highway transport exemption in O. Reg. 285/01 because it did not hold a valid CVOR under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Divisional Court held this interpretation was unreasonable, as the Regulation only required an operating licence under the repealed Truck Transportation Act and did not incorporate Highway Traffic Act requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the AGCO's decision refusing a retail sales authorization for a cannabis store.

The AGCO rejected the application because the proposed location was within 150 metres of a school, measured using a straight-line method.

The applicant argued the distance should be measured by the shortest publicly available walking route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the AGCO's straight-line measurement method was a reasonable interpretation of the Cannabis Licence Act and its regulations, and that the method was sufficiently transparent to the public.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order that granted joint custody and gradually increased the respondent mother's access to their child.

The appellant also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the child's recent regressive behaviour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test and consisted largely of uncorroborated hearsay.

The court also dismissed the appeal, concluding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the child's best interests, the mother's history of substance abuse, and the parties' ability to communicate.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal ordering it to produce redacted legal invoices to a unit owner.

The corporation had sent a letter to all owners blaming a small group of owners for increased legal costs, which the Tribunal found constituted a waiver of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the invoices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's application of the common law principles of waiver or its interpretation of the disclosure exceptions under the Condominium Act.

During a case management teleconference for an appeal, the self-represented appellant failed to attend.

The appellant had previously requested an in-person hearing.

The court noted that in-person hearings were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ordered the appeal to proceed by videoconference.

A hearing date was set, with instructions for the appellant on how to request an adjournment if necessary.

A case management endorsement setting the timetable for an expedited appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appeal concerns the scheduling and hearing of a recusal motion and an outstanding motion by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court established deadlines for serving appeal records and factums, and scheduled the appeal to be heard by Zoom videoconference.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of interim orders made by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which restricted his medical practice due to concerns that his conduct exposed patients to harm.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC reasonably relied on expert evidence to conclude patients were likely to be exposed to harm, and that the paper-based process followed by the ICRC met the required duty of procedural fairness for interim protective orders.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an application regarding the sale of a property.

The court scheduled the hearing for December 11, 2020, and provided directions for the filing of materials via Caselines or a file-sharing platform.

The respondent agreed not to close the sale of the property prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

The court also provided directions for a potential motion for security for costs.

The moving party sought an order for the Sheriff to sell a property to satisfy a judgment debt.

The responding party sought an adjournment, arguing the property belonged to his deceased mother's estate.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, noting a 2017 order had already declared the transfer to the mother a sham and ordered the sale.

The court directed the Sheriff's sale to proceed and set a timeline for the occupants to vacate the property.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Justice of the Peace Review Council dismissing his complaint regarding a traffic ticket trial.

The court found the application appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, as it sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction and attempted to re-litigate the underlying trial.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 requiring the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed, and stayed the proceeding in the interim.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Akbarali J. on November 12, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $1,500.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated June 29, 2020, and August 17, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $10,000, payable jointly and severally by the moving parties.