Divisional Court

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of an employee who purchased marijuana while on duty in a City vehicle.

The union alleged the employee was disabled due to marijuana addiction and required accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the union failed to prove a disability on a balance of probabilities was reasonable, largely due to the employee's lack of credibility and uncorroborated evidence.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The respondent had alleged fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a fuel-saving device but failed to file responding evidence on the summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by relying on unsupported pleadings and misapprehending when the limitation period commenced.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the counterclaim.

The applicant, TVO, sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award which found it breached a collective agreement by allowing a non-bargaining unit member to record interviews that were later posted online as podcasts.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because the recordings were originally made for research purposes, a permitted activity for non-bargaining unit members.

The court also found the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by refusing to consider the intervener union's de minimis argument.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action against the police for trespass, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and misfeasance in public office after officers shot and killed her pit bull terriers while executing an arrest warrant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, placing an onus on her regarding alternative steps the police could have taken, and failing to find causation for her psychological injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or his conclusion that the police acted reasonably in prioritizing human safety during a high-risk situation.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decision to decline making findings on causation given the lack of liability.

The appellant general contractor sued the respondent subcontractor for breach of contract after the respondent refused to commence work without an agreement for extra costs due to inaccurate tender documents.

The respondent counterclaimed for loss of profit and surveying costs.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claim and awarded damages to the respondent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the substantial errors in the tender documents constituted a fundamental mistake that rendered the contract void.

Consequently, neither party was entitled to damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the trial judgment in favour of the respondent.

The appellants, former mutual fund and exempt market dealers, entered into a settlement agreement with the Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA) regarding regulatory violations.

They subsequently applied to the Ontario Securities Commission to reinstate their registrations as dealing representatives.

The Commission denied the applications, finding the appellants lacked the requisite proficiency and integrity.

On appeal, the appellants argued the Commission unreasonably failed to defer to the MFDA settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission has sole jurisdiction over registration suitability and the MFDA had made no findings on that issue to which the Commission could defer.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement governing shift assignments for transit operators.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's method of assigning work on the spare board violated the agreement, interpreting provisions related to vacant shifts and wind down operators.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including her reliance on past practice to resolve an ambiguity, to be defensible and reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to not deal with his complaint regarding the conduct of the Chief of Police and other senior officers during the G20 summit.

The OIPRD dismissed the complaint under s. 60(2) of the Police Services Act because it was filed more than six months after the incident.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the Director breached procedural fairness and statutory requirements by failing to provide adequate reasons.

The court held that s. 60(2) is not a strict limitation period and requires consideration of discoverability and public interest.

The matter was remitted to the Director for reconsideration; mandamus was denied.

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing their application.

They argued that the Vice-Chair should have recused himself because he had previously acted as a lawyer for one of the applicants in a related matter.

The Divisional Court found that the Vice-Chair misunderstood the test for conflict of interest and the appearance of bias, as set out in Macdonald Estate v. Martin.

The court quashed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying the plaintiff's action regarding allegedly defective organic asphalt shingles as a class proceeding.

The defendants argued that the claims for negligent design and negligent manufacture should have been pleaded separately, that there was no common defect, and that the claim for pure economic loss could not succeed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order, and emphasizing the flexibility of the class proceedings process.

The applicants brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal initiated by the respondent mother regarding a custody and access judgment.

The respondent argued she was impecunious and could not afford to pay costs.

The court found that while the appeal had a low prospect of success, it did not meet the strict threshold of being frivolous and vexatious under Rule 61.06(1)(a).

However, because the respondent's father was funding her litigation, the court found 'other good reason' to order security for costs under Rule 61.06(1)(c).

The respondent was ordered to pay $10,000 into court.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement reached by his former counsel with the respondent police board.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider her discretion to continue the proceeding under Rule 49.09(b) and erred in fact by ignoring his evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised her discretion to enforce the settlement, as the former counsel had ostensible authority to settle and the appellant's remedy for any allegedly negligent legal advice lay against his former counsel, not the respondents.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's refusal to reconsider its decision certifying the respondent union.

The employer alleged that one of the employees had not signed a union membership card.

The Board denied the reconsideration request, citing the employer's delay and the fact that the Board had already returned the membership cards to the union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that it properly considered multiple factors, including delay, prejudice, and the loss of continuity of the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award denying her independent standing in a grievance arbitration concerning her alleged breach of a settlement agreement's non-disclosure provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the union had exclusive carriage of the matter and that any complaints regarding the union's representation should be directed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Court also held that the application for judicial review was premature.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission, arguing that the Commission unreasonably inferred that the appellant had knowledge of a proposed acquisition based on circumstantial evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission's detailed findings of fact provided clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to support the inference of knowledge.

The standard of review was agreed to be reasonableness, and the court found the Commission's inference to be reasonable and compelling.