Divisional Court

The appellant sued his former solicitor for professional negligence regarding a statutory accident benefits claim.

The solicitor sought production of documents from the appellant's subsequent infant settlement, which had been sealed by court order.

The motions judge granted the solicitor standing under Rule 38.11 to vary the sealing order and access the documents.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a sealing order does not supplant the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proper mechanism for the solicitor to seek production of the documents, and for the appellant to assert privilege, is the documentary discovery process under Rule 30, not a motion to vary the sealing order.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her former employer, a housing cooperative, engaged in reprisals against her for enforcing her rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions, including extending her probation and terminating her employment, were motivated by her health and safety complaints.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Tribunal's findings of fact and legal analysis were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a noting in default in an action for unpaid architectural services.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in principle by focusing solely on the defendants' delay without considering the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff and the general policy favouring the resolution of disputes on their merits.

The noting in default was set aside subject to a strict timetable for the remainder of the proceeding, with no costs awarded.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class action against a smartphone manufacturer regarding a product recall.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the pleadings failed to disclose a viable cause of action due to lack of particulars and lack of contractual privity.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to establish common issues, as the expert evidence on damages was not grounded in the facts of the case and individual trials would be necessary to determine harm.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision refusing leave to amend his statement of claim to add third parties as defendants.

The Master found that the two-year limitation period had expired, as the appellant knew or ought to have known of the cause of action against the third parties when the original defendants delivered their statement of defence and third party claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no contested issue of fact or credibility regarding discoverability that required a trial, and the Master correctly decided the limitation issue on the pleadings motion.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding $55,000 in damages following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the assessment was inconsistent, unreasonable, and out of proportion to the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious inconsistency in the jury's findings.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable, as the jury was entitled to assess the plaintiff's credibility and prefer the evidence of the respondent's medical expert over the appellants' expert.

The appellant, a former federal public servant, appealed a decision refusing to set aside an earlier order that dismissed his wrongful dismissal action for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent brought a motion before the Divisional Court to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court agreed it lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act, as the appealed decision was a final order of a Superior Court judge.

Applying the Dunnington criteria, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal rather than transfer it, finding the appeal had no merit because the appellant's claims were barred by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and he failed to meet the test for setting aside an order made in his absence.

The court determined the costs of an appeal where success was divided.

The damages award in favour of the respondents had been reduced, but they remained substantially successful.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04(1.1), noting the reasonably complex legal issues and the appellant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The respondents were awarded $13,821.19 in costs inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The applicant, a pharmacy manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to caution him and require an educational program following a serious dispensing error by a pharmacist at his pharmacy.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair, claiming he was improperly held responsible for another's mistake and denied procedural fairness regarding his discipline history and communication issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, noting the applicant's responsibility as designated manager for pharmacy policies and procedures.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing its objection to the certification of a union.

The employer argued the union discriminated on the basis of age in its constitution and other collective agreements, violating s. 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 15 was reasonable and that procedural fairness was not breached when the Board dismissed the objection without an oral hearing.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

The tenant failed to attend the hearing and subsequent review hearings, and did not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding his appeal.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal or dismiss it for delay, and to lift the automatic stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit, raised no legitimate point of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed to delay eviction.

The court quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlord.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for wrongful dismissal damages.

He was terminated for unsuitability after six weeks of employment.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the employment contract contained a valid six-month probationary period and an enforceable termination clause limiting entitlements to the Employment Standards Act minimums.

Because the appellant had less than three months of service, he was not entitled to statutory notice or pay in lieu thereof.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of the Director of Titles dismissing her application to transfer her property from the land titles system to the registry system.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the Land Titles Act and converted the matter to an application for judicial review.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court upheld the Director's decision, finding the appellant failed to identify special circumstances specific to her property that would justify withdrawal from the land titles system.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

They argued the Deputy Judge erred by failing to inquire into the competence of their unlicensed agent under s. 26 of the Courts of Justice Act, and that they received ineffective assistance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no duty on a Deputy Judge to conduct such an inquiry absent proper grounds, which were not present here.

The court also noted the appellants failed to give notice of the appeal to the agent, precluding the ineffective assistance argument.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review seeking criminal declarations and damages against various public officials, including the late Mayor Rob Ford, based on an unanswered email.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the application raised no recognizable legal issue or government decision subject to judicial review, the court dismissed the application.

The applicants, two student associations, sought judicial review to quash the Minister's 'Student Choice Initiative' directives, which required colleges and universities to allow students to opt out of student association fees.

The Divisional Court found the directives justiciable, rejecting the government's arguments that they were immune from review as core policy decisions or exercises of the Crown's prerogative spending power.

The Court held that the directives were unlawful because they conflicted with the statutory schemes governing colleges and universities, which protect the autonomy of universities and the normal activities of college student associations.

The application was granted and the directives were quashed.

The appellant appealed an order dealing with a motion to change child support, challenging the motion judge's findings on imputed income, retroactive child support, special expenses, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in the motion judge's detailed reasons.

The court also declined to address additional issues raised by the respondent because no cross-appeal was filed.

The respondent was awarded $1,000 in costs for reasonable disbursements as a self-represented litigant.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's alleged failure to release a decision on his motion for interim relief.

After the tribunal released its decision, the court considered whether to dismiss the application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the application was rendered moot by the tribunal's decision and that the applicant's remaining challenges to the tribunal's processes lacked any legal basis.

The application was dismissed as frivolous with no costs.