Divisional Court

The applicants sought judicial review and an order in the nature of certiorari to quash a Justice of the Peace's decision dismissing their application for a stay of proceedings based on s. 11(b) Charter delay.

The applicants also sought an extension of time to serve the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the delay in perfecting the application was not adequately explained and that certiorari for error of law on the face of the record is not available for interlocutory review of a pre-trial ruling in a quasi-criminal matter under the Provincial Offences Act.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its application for certification and a related employer declaration against SNC.

The Board had found that SNC was not the employer of two construction labourers working on an SNC job site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's determination of the true employer using the York Condominium factors was reasonable and fell squarely within its expertise.

The Court also rejected the union's argument that the Board breached natural justice by suggesting another entity might be the employer, noting the only material issue was whether SNC was the employer.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce two default judgments from a Florida court against the respondent for his role in a complex fraud scheme.

The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Florida court and raised defences of fraud and denial of natural justice.

The court found a real and substantial connection between the respondent and Florida, and rejected the defences.

However, because the respondent had a pending motion in Florida to set aside the judgments, the court recognized the judgments but stayed their enforcement in Ontario pending the outcome of the foreign motion.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision refusing leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion because it was brought more than two years after the decision, well beyond the four-day limit in Rule 61.16(6), with no reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the court noted that such a motion will only be granted if the motions judge declined jurisdiction, which did not occur in this case.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary a consent order for child and spousal support.

The motions judge had found no material change in circumstances, noting the appellant was deliberately underemployed and maintained a comfortable lifestyle financed by credit, despite claiming no income.

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

The applicant moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for failure to perfect.

The applicant claimed he overlooked the filing requirements due to family stress and argued he was denied accommodation for his hearing impairment in the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting the applicant's history of abusive and duplicitous proceedings, his failure to file a proper motion record, and his failure to meet the criteria for setting aside a dismissal order.

The court also dismissed his repeated request to remove the respondent's counsel and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant, a registered nurse, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which issued a Letter of Caution and required remediation.

The College conceded that the ICRC breached procedural fairness by relying on witness statements without disclosing them to the applicant or providing an opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court quashed the ICRC's decision and remitted the matter for a fresh determination, while dismissing the applicant's other jurisdictional and Charter arguments.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a Direction to Exclude issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The applicant argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness by not holding an oral hearing, and made an unreasonable decision based on inadmissible evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had previously agreed to the rescission of an earlier direction and to proceed by written submissions.

The court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's decision was reasonable given that the core allegations were undisputed.

The applicant, a paralegal candidate, sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision that quashed his motion challenging the constitutional validity of By-law 4 during his good character hearing.

The Hearing Panel had concluded it lacked institutional competence to conduct broad constitutional inquiries into the governance of the Society.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, agreeing that the Hearing Panel correctly held it had no jurisdiction to deal with the broad issue of the by-law's validity, and that such questions are appropriately raised before a court of original jurisdiction.

The appellant homeowner appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent painter $1,520 plus costs for unpaid work under an oral contract.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in calculating the amount owed and in finding that the Consumer Protection Act did not apply to limit the price to the original estimate.

The Divisional Court found a minor mathematical error and reduced the judgment to $1,480, but upheld the trial judge's finding that the Consumer Protection Act did not apply to this type of construction contract.

The appeal was allowed in part to correct the calculation.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing that the Board's mid-hearing decision to require will-say statements and limit examination-in-chief to thirty minutes was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no prospect of real unfairness on the record and noting that judicial review of administrative action during a pending hearing should generally be avoided until the hearing is completed.

The applicant School Board sought judicial review of two OLRB decisions that allowed a union to proceed with a construction grievance despite referring it to arbitration four months past the collective agreement's 14-day deadline.

The OLRB vice-chair had ruled the timelines were directory and that the OLRB had broad discretion under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act to extend them.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, holding that the collective agreement's timelines were mandatory and that neither s. 48(16) nor s. 133 of the Act granted the OLRB jurisdiction to extend the time for referring a grievance to arbitration.

The moving party sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a motions judge's dismissal of an ex parte motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The moving party argued the motions judge erred in finding no fraudulent conveyance and requiring an interest in land.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that because the underlying decision was ex parte, conclusory, and contrary to established law, it had no precedential value and granting leave would serve no public interest.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add a new cause of action.

The defendant argued the new claim was time-barred and relied on Rule 62.02(4), asserting the motion judge's decision conflicted with other cases on discoverability under the Limitations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that a failure to apply established principles does not constitute a conflicting decision requiring resolution under the Rule.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that reduced and ultimately terminated his periodic monthly payments.

The appellant had been receiving compensation for injuries sustained when he intervened in a motor vehicle accident involving an intoxicated driver.

The Board terminated the payments after 14 years, noting the appellant's receipt of other income replacement benefits, lack of retraining efforts, and the impact of a pre-existing injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's exercise of its discretion to vary the compensation order under section 25 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Social Benefits Tribunal that found her disentitled to ODSP benefits after she inherited a house from her mother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a statutory right of appeal, which she failed to pursue within the time limit.

The court also noted undue delay in bringing the application and found no merit to the substantive arguments, as the applicant was the legal owner of the inherited house.

The applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted a former employee sick leave benefits for a period after his fixed-term employment contract had expired.

The arbitrator found that the employee's entitlement to the benefits had vested while he was still employed, bridging the gap to his long-term disability benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was transparent, rational, and justified.