ODC 2022

The plaintiff sued the defendant police officers and their employer for negligent investigation after criminal charges of a sexual nature against him were withdrawn.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the motion judge dismissed on the basis that expert evidence was required to determine the standard of care and whether reasonable and probable grounds existed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the motion judge erred in law; expert evidence is not required for a court to assess reasonable and probable grounds, as this is within the routine experience of a judge.

Finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on the complainant's statements, the court allowed the appeal, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the action.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the tenancy was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under s. 5(i) because the tenant was required to share a kitchen and bathroom with the landlord's daughter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's interpretation of the exemption or its factual findings regarding the daughter's residency and use of the shared facilities.

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement to clarify its previous decision overturning a trial judge's parenting order.

The parties sought clarification on whether the trial order or a prior interim order governed the father's parenting time.

The court confirmed that because the trial order was set aside, the interim parenting order from September 22, 2015, continues in effect until a new order is agreed upon or imposed.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Pharmacists imposing a 14-month suspension and other remedial terms.

The appellant had been duped into filling thousands of fraudulent prescriptions for dangerous narcotics due to her failure to take basic professional steps.

The Divisional Court applied the appellate standard of review and found no error in principle, concluding that the penalty was not clearly unfit and was well within the range of reasonable outcomes given the colossal scale of the professional shortcomings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the dismissal of his appeal by a case management judge.

The appeal had been dismissed for delay after the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with case management scheduling orders to perfect his appeal.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding that the case management judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal without a formal motion, that filing an amended notice of appeal does not restart the time for perfection, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision ordering a hospital to disclose a linen services contract and a memorandum summarizing its terms.

The applicant argued the records contained financial information supplied in confidence during a bid process, exempting them from disclosure under s. 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator reasonably concluded that the contract was the product of negotiations and the information was mutually generated, not supplied in confidence.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed its application for certification of a construction industry bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably refused to order a representation vote and lacked discretion to dismiss the application under s. 128.1(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant did not wish to represent the appropriate province-wide bargaining unit and that determining employee support was impossible due to the passage of time caused by the applicant's litigation strategy.

The Court held the Board reasonably interpreted s. 128.1(13) as conferring discretion to dismiss an unmeritorious application to avoid leaving it in limbo.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to appeal a decision dismissing their appeal of an Assessment Officer's decision regarding unpaid legal fees.

The moving parties, who were self-represented, argued that the delay was caused by illness and confusion over the appeal period.

Applying the four-factor test from Catalyst Capital Group, the court found that while the merits of the appeal were weak, the delay was not excessive and the interests of justice favoured granting the extension.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The appellant sued her former family lawyer for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to properly advise her regarding spousal support and business valuations when negotiating a separation agreement.

The motion judge stayed the civil action as an abuse of process, ruling that the appellant must first attempt to set aside the separation agreement under the Family Law Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Family Law Act is a complete code for spousal support claims and the civil system should not be used to circumvent the statutory regime governing matrimonial disputes.

The mother appealed a motion judge's decision regarding retroactive child support and imputed income.

The motion judge had denied the mother's request for retroactive support prior to October 2019, finding that the father had made payments for airline tickets and a lump sum that offset the amount owed.

The motion judge also imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered her to pay child support for the child in the father's care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing an adolescent patient and engaging in disgraceful conduct towards another adolescent boy.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors of fact and held his evidence to an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee properly evaluated the evidence, made reasonable credibility findings, and correctly concluded the conduct amounted to masturbation requiring mandatory revocation.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $1,500 all-inclusive.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order.

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

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated November 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated February 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The applicant political party sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's responses to its complaints regarding the exclusion of its candidates from third-party organized election debates.

The applicant argued that the exclusion constituted illegal campaign contributions and violated Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Chief Electoral Officer's disposition of the complaints did not involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision and did not affect any legal rights or privileges, and therefore was not subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, but restricted it solely to issues concerning COVID-19 vaccination.

The court recommended the appeal be heard alongside a related case and ordered the responding party to pay costs of $4,500.

The parties advised the court in writing that the matter had been settled.

On consent, the court ordered that the appeal be dismissed without costs to either party.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to confirm an Associate Justice's order that enforced a default payment provision of $286,061.10 under a settlement agreement.

The respondent's late payment was due to junior counsel being distracted by her wedding and honeymoon.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the Associate Justice erred in enforcing the default provision.

The appeal and request for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that required it to pay an employee his hourly wage for time spent commuting between an out-of-town hotel and a job site in a rental car provided by the employer.

The arbitrator found that the rental car constituted the 'Employer's equipment' under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's practical, common-sense interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.