ODC 2021

The applicant sought to enforce a $1 million USD arbitral award obtained in China against the respondent for unpaid brake pads.

The respondent sought an adjournment of the enforcement application and an order for security for costs, while the applicant cross-moved for an order requiring the respondent to pay the arbitral award into court.

The motion judge ordered the applicant to post security for costs and dismissed the cross-motion.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court found that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to undertake a holistic analysis of the justness of the security for costs order, and set it aside.

However, the court upheld the refusal to order the advance payment of the arbitral award into court, as Article 36(2) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act was not engaged because the respondent had not applied to set aside the award in China.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The respondent did not oppose the motion.

The court noted that the proper procedure for challenging the tribunal's decisions on a question of law is by way of statutory appeal, and judicial review on questions of mixed fact and law is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

The moving party requested more time to decide how to proceed, and the motion was adjourned to a case conference.

The plaintiffs moved for an order staying or adjourning the defendant's motion for leave to appeal a case management judge's decision on a Rule 21 motion.

The Rule 21 motion was heard together with the first stage of a bifurcated certification motion in a proposed class proceeding arising from a mass shooting.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and granted the stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured postponing the leave motion until after the second stage of the certification motion was decided to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claims for breach of a settlement agreement, defamation, wrongful interference, and oppression, while upholding a small claim for unpaid invoices.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's failure to find an accord and satisfaction regarding the unpaid invoices.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the law.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that barred their civil action against the respondents for constructive dismissal and assault.

The Tribunal had found that the underlying incident was a workplace accident, not an intentional assault, and that the civil claims were inextricably linked to the workplace injury, thus barred by section 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable, the barring of the constructive dismissal claim was justified as a disguised tort claim, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to post $30,000 in security for costs and a subsequent order striking his pleadings for failing to do so.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred in principle by ordering security for costs based on past non-compliance with costs orders, as Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules requires an order for costs that remains unpaid at the time the order is made.

As there was no unpaid costs order when the motion was heard, the court lacked authority to make the order.

The appeal was allowed and the orders were set aside.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee to suspend his certificate of registration on an interim basis.

The suspension followed complaints that the applicant failed to wear a mask during patient examinations, in breach of an undertaking he had signed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's process was procedurally fair and its decision to impose an interim suspension was reasonable given the risk of harm to patients and the applicant's ungovernability.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed her complaint that her former employer terminated her as a reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board had found she was terminated for cause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness or reasonable apprehension of bias by the Board's Vice-Chair.

Applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, the Court held that the Board's decision was logical, well-reasoned, and based on an extensive review of the evidence.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Lococo J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable forthwith to the plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The appellant appealed a final order directing the partition and sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale despite a triable issue regarding a trust claim and by failing to find the respondent's conduct was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant conceded the conduct issue during oral argument.

The court found no error in the motion judge's application of the relevant legal principles, as the appellant failed to establish prejudice arising from the sale.

The applicant physician sought a stay, a sealing order, and a publication ban pending judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also dismissed the request for a sealing order, citing the open court principle.

However, the court granted anonymization and limited redactions to protect the applicant's personal medical records and her status as a victim of sexual assault.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a physician regarding decisions of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The physician sought judicial review of seven public complaint decisions and one Registrar's investigation decision related to her social media posts about the COVID-19 pandemic.

The College argued the application regarding the public complaints was premature because the physician had also sought review before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The court granted the motion to quash the portion of the application relating to the public complaints, finding that the HPARB process provided an adequate alternative remedy and no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the administrative process.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee five months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent was terminated without cause after four and a half months of employment while five months pregnant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in considering the respondent's pregnancy as a factor under the Bardal framework when determining the reasonable notice period, nor did the motion judge err in the costs award.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 31, 2021.

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

The moving party father sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal a temporary order granting decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and child support to the respondent mother.

The father served his notice of motion outside the 15-day period required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the father had not formed an intention to appeal within the relevant period, offered no explanation for the delay, and his proposed appeal lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Vella dated July 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion to be determined at the appeal.