ODC 2021

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award finding it breached the collective agreement by transferring work to a different geographic location.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted the scope of the 'Work of the Bargaining Unit' clause and failed to find that bargaining unit members were deprived of overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable based on its express wording and context.

The Court also found the arbitrator made the requisite factual finding regarding the deprivation of overtime, which was owed deference.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party only submitted a brief letter in response.

The moving party brought an unopposed motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Tranquilli dated March 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, as no cost summaries were filed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy on the basis that the landlords had entered into a valid agreement of purchase and sale and the purchaser required possession in good faith.

The tenant argued the agreement was invalid because it required vacant possession on closing, and that the Board erred in interpreting her lease as month-to-month.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's arguments raised questions of mixed fact and law rather than extricable questions of law, and that the Board did not breach procedural fairness in refusing to summons the property manager.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the claim based on an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to consider whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The parties agreed the order was final.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a city council decision and an integrity commissioner's report finding he engaged in sexual misconduct and obstructed an investigation.

The integrity commissioner recommended, and the city council imposed, a 90-day suspension of pay, a formal reprimand, and other remedial actions.

The Divisional Court upheld the integrity commissioner's findings and process, finding no breach of procedural fairness and that the investigation was properly commenced.

The court upheld most of the remedial actions imposed by the city council but quashed one measure that restricted the councillor to communicating with the public solely via his city email address, finding it overly broad and unreasonable.

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) that denied minor variances for a lot severance.

The moving party missed the deadline to perfect the motion by over a year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that while there was a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was extensive without a satisfactory cumulative explanation, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not raise questions of law of general importance, and the respondent would suffer prejudice from the ongoing delay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from endorsements refusing his requests to adjourn an upcoming trial.

The court directed the moving party to serve and upload his materials by a specific deadline.

The moving party failed to upload any materials by the deadline.

Given the imminent trial date, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering termination of their tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The appellants argued they were owners under a rent-to-own agreement, not tenants.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that the notice of appeal disclosed no error of law, as the interpretation of the agreement was a question of mixed fact and law.

The court also noted the appellants' unexplained delay in perfecting the appeal and their failure to pay over $30,000 in rent arrears.

Powerhouse Corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision granting it a liquor licence but imposing a condition prohibiting outdoor amplified music at its Cabana pool bar.

The City of Toronto cross-appealed, arguing the licence should have been refused entirely because Powerhouse's application was an abusive attempt to circumvent existing noise conditions on the venue's prior licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals.

The Court held the LAT correctly interpreted its limited jurisdiction under s. 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act and properly applied an objective standard to assess noise disturbances affecting Toronto Island residents.

The Court also rejected Powerhouse's procedural fairness arguments regarding an incomplete hearing transcript and alleged lack of notice.

The defendants appealed the certification of a class action claiming intrusion upon seclusion following a massive data breach by third-party hackers.

The certification judge had allowed the claim to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the novel claim would fail.

The Divisional Court majority allowed the appeal and set aside the certification of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, holding that the tort requires an actual intrusion by the defendant, not merely a failure to prevent an intrusion by others.

The plaintiffs' economic interests were adequately protected by the tort of negligence.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 3, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed in the amount of $2,500.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order denying summary judgment.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the dispute resolution clause (GC8) in the contract between the parties extinguished the responding party's right to bring a court action.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Emery J. dated January 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 15, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a funeral home, sought judicial review of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario's decision to grant a conditional licence to a competing crematorium and visitation centre located on the same property.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the applicant lacked private standing as it was not directly affected by the decision and its rights were not infringed.

The court also found the applicant lacked public interest standing, as the case did not raise a serious justiciable issue and the applicant's true motive was to eliminate a competitor.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Law Society of Ontario and several individuals.

Before a summary hearing was scheduled, the applicant requested early document production, which the Tribunal's Registrar deferred as premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interim decision.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was manifestly premature as the Tribunal had not made a final decision on document production and no exceptional circumstances warranted early court intervention.

The appellant appealed an order under the Succession Law Reform Act regarding dependant support for her two minor children from their late father's estate.

The application judge had split the net estate equally between the children and the deceased's surviving spouse.

The Divisional Court found the application judge erred in his application of the legal test for quantifying support and improperly considered the appellant's receipt of social assistance.

The court varied the order to allocate 100 percent of the net estate to the minor children, given their precarious financial circumstances compared to the surviving spouse, while upholding the decision to exclude a pre-retirement surviving spouse pension from the estate's value.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to post an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for a proposed trailer park's sewage works on the Environmental Registry for public comment.

The Minister relied on s. 32(1)(a) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which exempts proposals from posting if they are a step towards implementing a project approved by a tribunal after affording an opportunity for public participation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Minister's decision was reasonable, as the prior Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the trailer park development provided a sufficient opportunity for public participation concerning the sewage works.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.