Divisional Court

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent employee $25,000 for breach of a fixed-term employment contract.

The employee was hired for a one-year term to cover a maternity leave but was terminated after five months due to a shortage of work.

The employer argued the trial judge erred by inferring the contract guaranteed full-time hours, as the written agreement was silent on hours.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the parties objectively intended a full-time position, and no palpable and overriding error in the damages calculation.

The appellant mother appealed an order interpreting a separation agreement regarding child support and an equalization payment set-off.

The parties had shared custody and agreed to a set-off of child support against a $97,000 equalization payment owed by the mother.

The mother argued the set-off should be calculated from the date of separation based on the father's actual higher income, rather than the date of the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge made no reviewable error in interpreting the contract and concluding the set-off began at the date of the agreement, noting the discretion under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines for shared parenting.

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement to correct an accidental slip in its previous reasons for judgment dismissing the applicant's application.

The court amended paragraph 34 of the reasons pursuant to Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to accurately reflect that the agreement as to costs was between the applicant and the University of Toronto, not the union.

The applicant was ordered to pay agreed costs of $8,000 to the University.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Small Claims Court orders arising from a default judgment in an aborted real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error or breach of procedural fairness by the deputy judges.

The court noted that the applicant was improperly attempting to use judicial review to circumvent the statutory appeal process under the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of notices of trespass issued by the respondent school boards.

The application was dismissed for delay, and the respondents sought their costs.

The court found no reason to depart from the usual rule that the successful parties are entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant was ordered to pay fixed costs of $5,611.52 to one board and $1,138.48 to the other.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an order quashing its appeal of a decision that refused to certify class action claims against certain defendants while certifying claims against others.

The Divisional Court held that under section 30 of the Class Proceedings Act, where an action is certified against some defendants but not others, the plaintiff requires leave to appeal the refusal.

Applying binding appellate authority, the court found that allowing an appeal as of right would unduly delay the certified proceeding.

The motion was dismissed.

In the context of a family law dispute, moving non-parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order refusing to release a Ferrari from impound.

They brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent's factum and casebook, arguing they relied on facts without evidence.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it would unnecessarily delay the leave to appeal hearing, and instead permitted the moving non-parties to file a reply factum outlining their objections.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The union had withdrawn five of his six grievances regarding his termination and settled the final one.

The Board dismissed the complaint following a consultation process, finding the union acted reasonably and honestly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Board's process was procedurally fair and its decision was reasonable, transparent, and intelligible.

The tenant appealed a consent eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant failed to appear at the hearing and did not comply with the terms of a previous adjournment.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal because the tenant failed to obtain leave to appeal a consent order under s. 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act and the notice of appeal did not raise an error of law under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appellant contractor appealed a motion judge's order vacating its construction lien upon the respondent owner posting security in an amount significantly less than the lien claim.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by resolving complex factual issues regarding unapproved change orders and an extended duration claim on a summary motion under s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the law by reducing security only where the evidence failed to establish a reasonable basis for the amounts claimed, though it varied the order to correct a conceded mathematical error.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion seeking to have her appeal deemed perfected without filing a full trial transcript, arguing financial hardship.

She also sought an order directing the Registrar to issue a Certificate of Stay regarding a costs award from the trial judgment, and costs for an abandoned motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's grounds of appeal required a review of all trial evidence, necessitating a full transcript.

The court also declined to order a Certificate of Stay as the respondent was not enforcing the costs award, and denied costs for the abandoned motion.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision transferring her application under the Repair and Storage Liens Act to Brampton.

She argued that because the Act requires an application format, the Small Claims Court Rules regarding venue for actions (Rule 6.01) should not apply, and the Rules of Civil Procedure should govern instead.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 6.01 applies by analogy pursuant to Rule 1.03(2), as the policy rationale favouring local resolution of small claims disputes applies equally to applications.

The court treated the matter as an application for judicial review to ensure an immediate resolution and ordered the appellant to pay $300 in costs.

The applicants, a registered political party, contracted to place political advertisements in municipal bus shelters.

The city removed the advertisements on the basis that they discriminated against the transgendered community, without providing the applicants an opportunity to be heard or considering their freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court quashed the city's decision and a subsequent ratifying motion, finding that the city breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to balance the competing Charter rights and by denying the applicants natural justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a College committee's decision regarding an emergency physician's conduct.

The physician had begun completing a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act after the applicant staged a suicide attempt, but stopped when the applicant admitted it was faked.

The applicant sought the unconditional removal of the incomplete Form 1 from his hospital chart.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as the Personal Health Information Protection Act does not grant patients the right to demand the destruction of their medical records.

The defendant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $10,000 for damage to the plaintiff's recycling bins during snow removal operations.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by adopting the plaintiff's deductions rather than weighing the evidence and drawing his own reasonable inferences.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The respondent in a judicial review application moved to strike an affidavit delivered by the applicants.

The underlying application sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding sexual assault and harassment.

The applicants sought to introduce the affidavit of a forensic psychiatrist to argue the tribunal improperly relied on treating doctors' evidence to bolster the complainant's credibility.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to strike, holding that the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the legal issue of oath helping and did not meet the narrow test for admitting fresh evidence on judicial review.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found him incompetent, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered him to pay costs.

The Committee found the appellant had failed to maintain the standard of practice, engaged in professional misconduct by falsifying patient charts, and lacked insight into his deficiencies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's findings on incompetence, the penalty of revocation, and the costs award were reasonable and supported by the evidentiary record.