ODC 2021

The union applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's supplementary decision regarding the termination of employee benefits during the discipline process.

The arbitrator found that the employer's obligation to continue providing benefits to employees grieving their dismissal up to step three of the grievance procedure only lasted until the expiry of the collective agreement and the statutory freeze.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's decision was based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a finding of professional misconduct and a penalty decision by the College's Discipline Committee, which included a three-month suspension and a $135,000 costs award.

The misconduct related to the misdiagnosis and improper treatment of a dog's fractured paw.

On appeal, the appellant raised several procedural and constitutional arguments, including allegations of bias, unconstitutional by-laws, and failure to provide reasons by the Complaints Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law, and upheld the costs award as reasonable given the appellant's conduct during the proceedings.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to lift the automatic stay.

The tenants had persistently failed to pay rent and their notice of appeal did not state any grounds of appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed solely to delay eviction.

The appellant property owner entered into a contract with the respondent builder for the construction of a luxury home, paying a $3.8 million non-refundable deposit.

After the appellant failed to pay over $10.4 million in interim invoices, the respondent obtained summary judgment.

The appellant appealed solely on the issue of whether the deposit should be credited against the judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deposit was intended to secure completion of the contract and was forfeit due to the appellant's breach, rather than acting as a prepayment for interim invoices.

Three appeals were heard together to determine whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for filing appeals set out in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court held that s. 7 does grant the LAT jurisdiction to extend the s. 56 limitation period, as the time limit is fixed 'under an Act' (the Insurance Act).

The Court dismissed the insurers' appeals challenging the LAT's jurisdiction and its exercise of discretion to grant extensions, finding no errors of law.

In the third appeal, where the adjudicator had found no jurisdiction, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the LAT to consider the extension request.

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs of $34,377.28 on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a settlement offer.

The appellant argued he was a public interest litigant and that no costs should be ordered.

The Divisional Court found the appellant did not demonstrate he was a public interest litigant and held that costs should follow the event.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Rule 49 did not apply, and instead awarded the respondent costs of $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal regarding trustee compensation on a passing of accounts, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent (former trustee) sought full indemnity costs of $134,394.86, while the appellants argued for partial indemnity costs payable by the trust and sought their own costs from the trust.

The Divisional Court held that the respondent was entitled to full indemnity costs because he incurred them in his capacity as trustee.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $90,000 all-inclusive, ordering a blended costs award where the appellants pay 60 percent and the trust pays 40 percent.

The appellants were ordered to bear their own costs.

The appellant appealed a trial decision granting the respondent sole custody of their child, permitting relocation to Quebec, and dismissing his quantum meruit claim for a basement renovation.

The appellant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence regarding post-trial access disputes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

The appeal was also dismissed as the appellant failed to identify any error in principle or palpable and overriding error by the trial judge.

The court noted it lacked jurisdiction over the quantum meruit claim as it exceeded $50,000, but declined to transfer it to the Court of Appeal due to the absence of any identified error.

The respondents brought a motion to adjourn or stay an upcoming appeal pending the outcome of an application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal might find the subject matter of the underlying action to be within its exclusive jurisdiction, which would preclude the Superior Court from enforcing a settlement of that action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue on appeal—whether a legally enforceable settlement agreement was reached—was distinct from the merits of the claim and likely outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court also found that the respondents failed to bring their jurisdictional challenge and request for a stay on a timely basis.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal concerning the designation of certain properties under the Ontario Heritage Act and the interpretation of provincial and municipal heritage planning provisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions of law relating to the Tribunal's consideration of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and the municipal Official Plan.

Costs of the motion were fixed and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant's appeal proceedings were previously dismissed as abusive and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent and intervenors subsequently sought costs.

The court awarded the self-represented respondent her requested costs of $537.50.

The court also awarded the intervenors their requested costs of $5,600.28 on a full indemnity basis, finding that the appellant's conduct, which included baseless and scandalous attacks on the integrity of a judicial officer, was especially egregious and warranted the highest scale of costs.

The court declined to order that the appellant be prohibited from taking further steps until costs were paid, noting such relief is not available under Rule 2.1.01.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the order of Glustein J. dated September 9, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $10,000.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding it had discriminated against a job applicant on the basis of citizenship.

The employer had rescinded a job offer after discovering the applicant, an international student, lied about being eligible to work permanently in Canada.

The Divisional Court quashed the HRTO's decision, holding that it was unreasonable to conflate 'permanent residence' with 'citizenship' to find direct discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The court found that permanent residency is a separate status from citizenship, and the HRTO's expansion of the protected ground was not justified.

The self-represented appellants, claiming to be tenants, sought to appeal an order made between a second mortgagee and the property owners.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting the appellants were not parties to the underlying proceeding and had no standing to appeal.

The court held that any recourse the appellants might have should be pursued via a motion in the Superior Court of Justice at first instance.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The parties settled an appeal, agreeing that costs would be agreed to or assessed.

No agreement was reached.

The respondent on the appeal asked the court to fix and award the costs of the appeal, while the appellants requested a referral to an assessment officer.

The Divisional Court held that the matter was not complex and retained its discretion to fix costs.

The court awarded the respondent $5,820.63 for the appeal and $3,000 for the appearance.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to adopt a transitional regulation exempting a proposed waste management facility from the natural heritage policies of the 2019 Growth Plan.

The applicant also sought to quash a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that struck its appeal issues based on this regulation.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister exceeded his authority under s. 19(1)(d) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005, as the regulation did not address a genuine transitional matter but rather granted an exemption to key policies adopted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The regulation was declared ultra vires, and the LPAT decision was set aside and remitted.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding it breached the collective agreement by permitting a third-party hotel to use non-union workers for stage events.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably extended the union's jurisdiction beyond theatrical events and misconstrued the prohibition on contracting out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including the use of extrinsic evidence and the broad interpretation of the word 'permit', was internally coherent, logical, and reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.

The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed professional misconduct by improperly billing OHIP and falsifying patient records, and revoked his certificate of registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the Committee's liability decision.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, concluding it was not clearly unfit given the intentional and dishonest nature of the misconduct and the appellant's lack of insight.