Divisional Court

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming a compliance order that required the applicant to pay overtime to employees at its centralized sweet corn processing facility.

The Board had found that the facility was not a 'farm' and the work was not 'directly related to primary production' under the farm worker exemption in Regulation 285/01.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was unreasonable because it disregarded uncontradicted expert and operational evidence, adopted an arbitrary interpretation that created absurd results, and failed to properly balance the protective purpose of the exemption.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the court declared that the farm worker exemption applied to the employees.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's inability to work was due to his personality rather than his compensable chronic pain disorder, basing this on negative credibility findings.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable because it substituted its own opinion for uncontroverted medical evidence and failed to account for the Board's own policy describing the symptoms of the applicant's condition.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a contract for the purchase of a bicycle and related services.

The trial judge had ordered specific performance and rescission as remedies.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief, such as specific performance or rescission, unless it is in the form of a money judgment or the return of personal property within its monetary limit.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the equitable remedies and substituting a money judgment of $16.97 for discounted accessories.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for rent arrears.

The court found the tenant's grounds of appeal were devoid of merit as they did not raise questions of law.

However, noting the tenant's long-term tenancy and recent financial recovery, the court exercised its discretion to not immediately quash the appeal, instead imposing strict conditions requiring the payment of arrears in installments and ongoing rent.

If the conditions are met, the eviction orders will be set aside; if breached, the appeal will be dismissed and eviction will proceed.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from statements made during a local union election.

The court found that the election of an official to a local union is a private matter and not a matter of public interest under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also noted that the statements, which included allegations of criminal conduct and vulgar language, were not the type of expression worthy of protection.

The motion was dismissed.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Physician Payment Review Board which found that five claims submitted by a physician were not stale-dated.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board has jurisdiction to determine the true basis for a denial of claims, its finding that the claims were not denied under s. 18(3) of the Health Insurance Act was unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and a declaration was issued that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review decisions made under s. 18(3).

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe head injury after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs sought to extend the time to set the action down for a non-jury trial to assess damages, while the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, and the decision was upheld on appeal.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit bifurcation of a non-jury trial without consent.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 did not abolish the court's inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials in exceptional cases without consent.

The applicant insurers applied for judicial review of an Umpire's decision under s. 128(3) of the Insurance Act regarding the value of a loss following a house fire.

The Umpire valued the Actual Cash Value at $338,800, which significantly exceeded both the insured's appraisal of $210,000 and the insurer's appraisal of $185,000.

The Divisional Court found the Umpire's decision unreasonable as it exceeded the range of possible acceptable outcomes and lacked reasons to justify the departure from the policy provisions.

The decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a new Umpire.

The appellants, former senior executives of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decisions finding they engaged in a massive securities fraud and imposing significant sanctions, including disgorgement and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to account for Chinese business and cultural practices (guanxi) when determining their intent to defraud, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias by the panel chair, and challenged the sanctions as excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Ontario securities law overrides cultural practices for reporting issuers, the bias claim was unfounded, and the sanctions were reasonable given the enormity of the fraud and the need for deterrence.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent tenant $25,000 in damages for illegal distraint and dismissing the landlord's claim for unpaid common area expenses.

The Divisional Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship ended when the landlord changed the locks, making the subsequent distraint of the tenant's chattels illegal.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the landlord's claim for common area expenses due to a lack of supporting evidence at trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division upholding a finding that he failed to co-operate with a Law Society investigation into his firm's referral practices.

The appellant argued that his delay in providing financial records was due to confusion and misunderstanding, and that the Appeal Division interpreted the concept of 'good faith' too narrowly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Division reasonably concluded that good faith requires more than an absence of bad faith, and that ignorance of professional obligations or negligence in fulfilling them does not constitute good faith.

The appellant brought motions to set aside the orders of a motion judge, who had dismissed its motions to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of its Small Claims Court appeals.

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with a previous order requiring it to order full trial transcripts.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's decision, rejecting the self-represented appellant's argument that she misunderstood her obligations or was denied a fair hearing.

The motions were dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an application for certification.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought reconsideration by the Board under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the conflicting Board decisions raised important policy issues regarding the interpretation of its home statute, and that reconsideration offered an adequate alternative remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as premature.

The moving party sought an adjournment of a request for reconsideration on the basis that transcripts from the cross-examination of two affiants were not yet available.

The respondent objected, arguing the affidavits were irrelevant and the moving party had not moved expeditiously.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondent, finding that the affidavits in question addressed issues that were either already resolved or irrelevant to the reconsideration request.

The request for an adjournment was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid overtime wages against his former employers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the appellant failed to establish a cause of action against one defendant, failed to show the existence of two or more class members, failed to provide a litigation plan, and that preferable procedures such as small claims actions or employment standards complaints were available.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the defendants should have been ordered to produce lists of class members, as the appellant had not pursued this request prior to the certification motion.

The appellant purchased a three-year after-market vehicle warranty from the respondent.

When the appellant sought to renew the warranty, the respondent refused.

The appellant sued in Small Claims Court, where the trial judge found the renewal provision unenforceable because it lacked certainty regarding price and term.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that the renewal clause was merely an agreement to agree and unenforceable without an objective standard or formula to determine the renewal terms.