Divisional Court

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a 2016 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against his former employer.

The application was brought more than five years after the HRTO decision.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to mental illness and recently recalled memories.

The court dismissed the application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the delay excessive, the explanations incredible, and the proceeding an abuse of process that ignored the principle of finality in litigation.

In a high-conflict family law dispute, the self-represented moving party sought to challenge several temporary orders made by various judges.

During a case management conference, the court scheduled motions for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal two of the orders (relating to children's schooling and the sale of a rental property).

The court refused to schedule an extension motion for a third order excluding the moving party from a jointly-owned business, noting the request was vexatious as an earlier motion for leave had been abandoned.

The International Trademark Association (ITA) brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding an interlocutory injunction restraining the use of a disputed trademark.

The ITA sought to make submissions on the meaning and effect of recent amendments to Canada's trademark legislation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ITA's proposed arguments focused on the final disposition of legal questions that would be decided at trial, rather than the test for an interlocutory injunction which was the subject of the appeal.

The court concluded the intervention would distract rather than assist the appeal court.

The employer applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding its sick leave administration practices.

The employer had retained a third-party administrator and required employees to communicate with it, complete comprehensive medical forms for absences over five days, and use a specific form for return-to-work accommodations.

The Arbitrator found these practices violated the collective agreement, which specified communication with supervisors and limited the scope of medical information required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement to be reasonable and consistent with arbitral jurisprudence protecting employee privacy.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) applied for judicial review of a Coroner's preliminary ruling in an inquest into a fatal helicopter crash.

The Coroner had ordered the disclosure of certain aggregate and specific information about witness statements obtained during the TSB's investigation.

The TSB argued this information was protected by the statutory privilege in s. 30 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (CTSA).

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Coroner's decision unreasonable as it conflicted with the broad statutory privilege and the mandatory procedure for disclosure under s. 30(5) of the CTSA.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing nine judicial review applications on the basis that it lacked public interest standing.

The Divisional Court panel found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the test for public interest standing.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue transcending specific individual interests and that judicial review was not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

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

A related motion to strike fresh evidence was dismissed as moot, as the court concluded it would not grant leave even if the evidence were admitted.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld the employer's random drug testing policy for safety-sensitive positions at the airport.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it departed from established arbitral jurisprudence without justification.

Specifically, the arbitrator upheld the policy without any evidence of a workplace drug problem at the airport, relying instead on evidence from a different case involving a different workplace.

The application for judicial review was granted, the award was set aside, and the grievance was remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicants, police officers who took leaves of absence to serve as executives on the Ontario Provincial Police Association, sought an interim stay of a misconduct hearing pending their application for judicial review.

They argued the Adjudicator erred in finding they were still 'police officers' subject to discipline under the Police Services Act while on leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the misconduct proceedings to continue without further delay.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a motion judge's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions: whether the motion judge erred in ordering that the joint retainer of the accountant continue, and whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents under the retainer agreement.

Leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant, a self-represented lawyer, appealed a Small Claims Court deputy judge's costs award of $3,772.24 against him.

The deputy judge had found 'special circumstances' under Rule 15.07 of the Small Claims Court Rules to award costs exceeding the $100 limit for a motion, concluding the claim was an abuse of process.

In these additional reasons, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal of the costs award, finding no error in principle.

The court noted that while it might not have allowed certain disbursements, the claim was completely lacking a reasonable foundation and the overall costs amount was proportional and reasonable.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay, arguing the appeal was devoid of merit and an abuse of process due to unpaid rent.

The court found the appeal raised a procedural fairness issue, which constitutes a question of law, and was not manifestly devoid of merit.

Noting the tenant's partial payments and completion of appeal materials, the court declined to quash the appeal or lift the stay, but imposed strict terms requiring the tenant to pay ongoing rent plus $700 monthly towards arrears.

The tenant brought a motion for interim relief pending his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenant had been evicted based on the landlord's claim that her son required the unit, but the tenant presented new evidence suggesting the unit was re-rented to a non-family member.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and the Board's jurisdiction.

Balancing the factors, the court granted an interim order prohibiting the landlord from re-renting or changing the current use of the premises by family members until the appeal is heard, and expedited the appeal.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for damages after a patron verbally harassed the respondent at a City pool and the respondent's vehicle was subsequently vandalized in the parking lot.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the deputy judge erred in law by applying a strict liability standard rather than the standard of reasonable care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors in the deputy judge's conclusions on foreseeability and causation, as there was no evidence that the third-party acts were highly probable consequences of the City's conduct or that the City's actions caused the harm.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a first collective agreement for nurses at a long-term care home.

The union argued that the arbitrator's decision to transition the disability income protection plan to the central agreement terms was unreasonable and lacked adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied the replication principle and statutory criteria, and that the brief reasons were adequate given the parties' prior agreement to a bottom-line decision.

The appellant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an appeal without obtaining the required leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant claimed to have received legal advice that leave was not required for an appeal.

The court rejected this argument, noting that leave is required to bring an appeal.

The appeal was dismissed without costs, and a subsequent request for a panel review was denied as the decision was made pursuant to Rule 2.1.

The self-represented appellant sought to bring two motions to review previous orders in long-outstanding Small Claims Court appeals.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating its intention to dismiss the motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant's history of vexatious conduct and her reliance on her husband, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant.

The appellant failed to respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the proceedings and ordered that the appellant is prohibited from commencing further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior permission from an administrative judge.