Divisional Court

The employer applied for judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been terminated for sexually harassing and assaulting a contract cleaner.

The arbitrator found the employee committed the acts over five years and showed no remorse, but substituted a lengthy suspension for termination because the complainant did not want him discharged and another cleaner had successfully stopped his harassment by threatening violence.

The Divisional Court held the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, as it relied on irrelevant factors and undermined the employer's statutory duty to provide a harassment-free workplace.

The application was allowed and the termination upheld.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a costs order of $12,500 awarded to the defendants after the plaintiffs discontinued their action.

The plaintiffs argued that the parties had agreed to a discontinuance without costs and that the motion judge failed to address this agreement in his reasons.

The Divisional Court found that the evidence did not support the existence of such an agreement, as the defendants' offer was conditional on a similar agreement with another defendant, which was never reached.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Chair, which dismissed their request for review of an earlier OMB decision regarding draft plan conditions for a subdivision.

The applicants argued the Chair erred in applying the public interest test to deny an extension of time, applied the wrong legal test to strike Charter arguments, failed to recognize Charter rights related to home ownership, and ignored new evidence about inconsistent slope setbacks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Chair's decision on any of the grounds raised.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their claims for property damage, including a mould problem.

The Board found that the landlords failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the tenants caused the problems.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's conclusion was a finding of fact and that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The City of Hamilton sought judicial review of two arbitration awards regarding bus driver scheduling and seniority.

The union brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review, alleging bad faith, undue delay, and abuse of process.

The City brought a cross-motion to stay the arbitrator's decisions pending the judicial review.

A single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed both motions, finding that the issues, including the admissibility of affidavit evidence, were better left to be determined by the full panel of the Divisional Court scheduled to hear the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying her standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision on standing was both reasonable and correct.

The court further held that without standing, the applicant could not raise the issue of bias.

The court noted prematurity might also be a ground for dismissal but reserved definitive findings for written reasons to follow.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel the representative plaintiff to answer discovery questions regarding class members' tax and income information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the questions were speculative, disproportionate, and premature given that the methodology for calculating damages had not yet been determined.

The Town of Richmond Hill sought leave to appeal a preliminary decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the interpretation of parkland dedication provisions under the Planning Act.

The Town argued that the Board could not set an alternative park dedication rate in an Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding it premature.

The Court held that the issue was not a discrete threshold question and that granting leave would improperly fragment the ongoing Board proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay damages for breach of a contract for GPS tracking systems.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in rectifying the contract's cancellation provision to require a fee of $399 'per unit' rather than a flat fee of $399 for all 31 units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly identified an ambiguity and properly applied the remedy of rectification based on the mutual mistake and common intention of the parties to amortize the hardware costs over the life of the contract.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering her to repay $9,534.91 to the respondent, disputing $4,501.22 of that amount.

The appellant argued the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors in finding that three specific payments were loans and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence, including bank records and receipts, and that the reasons provided were sufficient to explain why the respondent's evidence was preferred.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent contractor $9,705.15 for pre-construction services.

The appellants argued they never agreed to pay for the services unless a construction contract was signed, and that the trial judge misapplied the doctrine of quantum meruit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that the trial judge correctly applied the test for quantum meruit, as the appellants were enriched by the respondent's services without a juristic reason.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a $1,000 costs order made by a Deputy Judge after her two Small Claims Court actions were consolidated and dismissed for exceeding the monetary jurisdiction due to claim splitting.

The appellant argued she was not given an opportunity to make submissions on costs.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant had made submissions regarding her inability to pay, and that the Deputy Judge made no error in principle.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions granting union certification in the construction industry.

The employer argued the Board erred by accepting a union membership card from an employee who worked on the application date but signed the card later that day after being laid off.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Board's long-standing practice of not parsing the date of application into units of time of less than a day was consistent with the Labour Relations Act and its purposes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant client appealed an order varying an Assessment Officer's report.

The motion judge found that the Assessment Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by determining that the appellant was not a client of the respondent solicitor, which constituted a dispute over the retainer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the Assessment Officer improperly determined a retainer issue.

The court also upheld the motion judge's order imposing joint and several liability, noting the parties had previously consented to proceed by assessment on that basis.

The applicant, a branch of the United States Department of Defense, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent its civilian employees in Ontario.

The Board had found that the applicant was a separate agency of the foreign state, had waived sovereign immunity, and was engaged in commercial activity.

The Divisional Court quashed the certification, holding that the applicant was an integral part of the U.S. government, had not waived its immunity, and was engaged in sovereign military support activities rather than commercial activities.

The applicant filed complaints against the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Independent Police Review Director (IPRD) refused to deal with the complaints under s. 60 of the Police Services Act.

The applicant sought judicial review and moved to compel the IPRD to deliver a record of proceedings.

The motion judge ordered the IPRD to file the record.

The IPRD applied to a full panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the order, arguing it was not exercising a statutory power of decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the IPRD's decision under s. 60 affects the complainant's rights and constitutes a statutory power of decision within the meaning of s. 10 of the Judicial Review Procedures Act, thereby requiring the IPRD to file a record of proceedings.