Divisional Court

The appellant was successful in appealing a Small Claims Court judgment and sought costs of $3,329.35.

The respondent, who was self-represented, submitted a brief email claiming $395.50 for limited legal advice.

The court found the appellant's claimed costs exceeded the principle of proportionality, as they represented over 30% of the $10,000 judgment in issue.

Costs were awarded to the appellant in the fixed amount of $2,000 inclusive of HST.

The appellants (defendants) appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for negligence and fundamental breach of contract regarding a roof installation.

The trial judge found the appellants failed to follow manufacturer specifications for high wind areas, voiding the 30-year warranty, and rejected their reliance on an 'act of God' exclusionary clause for wind damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for compensation following two assaults by another resident in his apartment building.

The Board denied the claim based on the appellant's credibility, reliability, reckless behaviour, and extensive criminal record, finding he had put himself in harm's way.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's consideration of the appellant's criminal record and behaviour under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act was reasonable.

The parties consented to fix costs in the amount of $89,972.43.

The court ordered that the costs be payable within two weeks of the respondent deciding not to appeal, or within two weeks of an order dismissing the respondent's appeal if leave is granted.

If the respondent successfully appeals, costs will be determined by the Court of Appeal.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board, arguing that the presiding member breached procedural fairness by conducting an independent investigation into property listings.

The Divisional Court found that while the member did conduct an independent investigation, he disclosed this fact to the parties during the hearing and they proceeded without objection.

The Court held that the parties waived the potential apprehension of bias and dismissed the appeal without costs.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on an appeal from a Master's order dismissing her motion to amend pleadings due to expired limitation periods.

The appellant sought to introduce medical notes and affidavits to prove she lacked capacity, which would toll the limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at first instance with due diligence, was largely irrelevant, and would not have affected the result as it failed to establish legal incapacity.

The appellant, an IT consulting firm, appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation.

The appellant had offered the respondent an independent contractor position at Loblaw, but failed to disclose that the position had not yet received final approval.

The respondent left another contract to accept the offer, which was subsequently withdrawn.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant made a negligent misrepresentation and that the respondent reasonably relied on it to his detriment.

The Court also held that the entire agreement clause in the contract did not preclude liability, applying the Tercon approach to find the clause unconscionable given the informational imbalance and lack of notice.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar General's decision to cancel his birth registration under the Vital Statistics Act, following a criminal conviction where it was found he had assumed a false identity.

The applicant argued that delegating the decision to a Ministry lawyer created a reasonable apprehension of bias and that denying his request for a teleconference hearing breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias given the distinct roles within the Ministry, and concluding that a written hearing satisfied the duty of fairness as the applicant failed to provide new evidence conclusively impeaching the prior judicial finding of his identity.

The appellant recruitment agency appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation.

The agency had offered the respondent an independent contractor position at Loblaw, representing it as a certainty, which caused the respondent to turn down another job offer.

The position at Loblaw was never finalized.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the agency made a negligent misrepresentation and that the entire agreement clause in the contract did not preclude liability, as it was unconscionable under the Tercon approach and the respondent was an unsophisticated party who was not given notice of the clause.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge's decision to halt a judgment debtor examination because the debtor was receiving social assistance.

The Divisional Court found that there is no authority in the Small Claims Court Rules to prevent an examination on this basis.

The purpose of the examination is to gather financial information, which may include uncovering assets unknown to social assistance agencies.

The application was allowed, the Deputy Judge's order was set aside, and a new examination was ordered before a different judge.

The defendant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the plaintiff $4,132.00 in unpaid commissions for recruiting international students.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge made palpable and overriding factual errors by ignoring clear evidence that the defendant required a formal, signed agency agreement before paying any commissions.

As the plaintiff placed students without such an agreement in place, there was no legal or equitable basis for the claim.

The judgment was set aside and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim regarding access to condominium records and ordering him to pay $2,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or breach of natural justice in the deputy judge's conduct.

However, the court held that the deputy judge erred in penalizing the applicant in costs for conduct outside the proceeding.

The application was allowed in part, and the costs award was reduced to $150 plus $500 in disbursements.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant had requested security footage and reports from the University of Ottawa regarding an alleged attempted theft of his backpack.

The adjudicator upheld the University's decision to withhold portions of the records, finding that the search was reasonable, there was no obligation to provide certified copies, and the withheld records contained personal information of third parties whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Divisional Court found the adjudicator's decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel upholding the revocation of his licence for misappropriating funds from his family's company and his former law firm.

He argued that his absolute discharge from bankruptcy estopped the Law Society from finding he misappropriated funds, and that the panel failed to account for proper disbursements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the Law Society was not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings and the issues were different.

The court also found the panel's factual findings regarding the misappropriation were reasonable.

The appellant father appealed a motions judge's decision finding that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to determine custody, access, and support issues for the parties' child, rather than the Quebec Superior Court.

The father also appealed the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly applied the law and made factual findings supported by the evidence, including that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that a prior Quebec parenting agreement was void due to reconciliation and lack of notice to the mother.

The court also dismissed the father's motion to introduce fresh evidence and upheld the costs award.

The applicants sought a declaration that Ontario Regulation 27/13 under the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006 was ultra vires and breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

They argued the regulation failed to create a 'doctor' class of practitioners and imposed discriminatory English or French language fluency requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was intra vires, there is no section 7 Charter right to practice a profession unfettered by regulation, and language alone is not a protected ground under section 15.