Divisional Court

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify additional common issues in an existing class action and refusing certification of a proposed related class action.

The claims arose from the distribution of a pension plan surplus following corporate downsizing.

The appellants sought to certify issues related to the partial termination of the pension plan, ownership of the surplus, and estoppel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the court lacks jurisdiction to order a partial termination of a pension plan, and that the other proposed common issues were either inextricably linked to the partial termination claim, already covered by existing certified issues, or inappropriate for certification because they required individual assessments of reliance.

The applicant appealed a Law Society Hearing Panel order suspending her licence for two and a half months.

She sought a permanent stay of proceedings, arguing her language rights were violated because the Law Society failed to form a francophone Appeal Panel in a timely manner.

The Divisional Court found that while the Law Society failed to demonstrate it took all necessary steps to fulfill its language rights duties, the applicant unilaterally began serving her suspension and did not show that allowing the appeal to proceed would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The application for a permanent stay was dismissed, but a temporary stay was continued until the appeal could be heard.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants engaged in a conspiracy and 'closure campaign' against their sleep clinics.

The defendants argued the claims were barred by statutory immunity under the Independent Health Facilities Act and constituted an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the pleadings were sufficient and the claims were not clearly barred by immunity.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, noting the Tribunal's strong privative clause.

The court found that the Tribunal reasonably relied on the lack of temporal linkage between the applicant's employment and his diagnosis, as well as credibility findings and medical evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board that approved a development application.

The applicants argued the approval effectively down-zoned a neighbouring property by creating a key lot, without a rezoning application being before the Board.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdiction to change zoning without following the procedures in the Planning Act, and concluding the issue was of sufficient importance to municipalities to warrant the attention of the full panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of two orders made under the Building Code Act and moved to compel a building inspector to answer questions on cross-examination regarding an information sworn to obtain a search warrant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the search warrant information was irrelevant to the judicial review application, which concerned the legal validity of the initial inspection and orders.

The court directed that the application be heard at the next sittings of the Divisional Court.

The employer sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award, arguing the arbitration board breached procedural fairness by considering post-hearing wage settlement data without allowing further submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board used the public information in a supplementary and confirmatory manner.

The court held that this approach was consistent with the flexible duty of fairness and the legislative nature of interest arbitration.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario suspending its liquor licence for six days for permitting drunkenness and serving an intoxicated patron.

The appellant argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board restricted cross-examination regarding an adjacent establishment, that the Board failed to articulate a legal test for intoxication, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no error of law in applying the plain meaning of intoxication, and that the penalty was reasonable.

The applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining leave to appeal a property tax assessment decision.

Before the costs order was finalized, the applicant requested a correction to the court's earlier reasons, noting the court had misunderstood its position regarding a claim for a refund of taxes for 2006 to 2008.

The court corrected its reasons, acknowledging the applicant had not abandoned its claim for a refund, but found this did not change the outcome of the leave to appeal motion.

The court then awarded the applicant costs of $8,700 on a partial indemnity scale, to be paid equally by the respondents, finding the amount reasonable given the complexity and importance of the issues.

The plaintiffs, family members of a young man shot and killed by police, brought an action against the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) alleging negligent investigation.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing the SIU owed no private law duty of care to the family.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The Divisional Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the existence of a duty of care in these circumstances is a novel question of law that should be determined on a full evidentiary record at trial, applying the Anns/Cooper test.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal ignored evidence, applied the wrong legal test, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal did not fundamentally misapprehend the evidence, correctly applied the test for a 'person with a disability' as set out in Crane, and provided adequate reasons to permit appellate review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that denied her compensation for mental or nervous shock following the murder of her son.

The Board had found she was a victim and suffered the injury, but erroneously applied s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act to preclude an award.

On consent, the Divisional Court set aside the decision, awarded funeral expenses, and remitted the matter to a new panel to assess the quantum of compensation for nervous shock without considering s. 17(1).

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding the respondent to be a person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the ODSPA.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by accepting the respondent's self-assessment of his emotional disability and restrictions in daily living activities without the mandatory medical verification by a prescribed professional.

The decision was set aside and the matter remitted for a re-hearing before a different Tribunal member.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal a decision of the Vice-Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board, which refused to order a rehearing of a decision granting approval for a mixed-use development on lands designated as 'Employment Areas'.

The City argued the Board erred in law by allowing the conversion without a municipal comprehensive review, contrary to the Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation—that the lands were not within 'Employment Districts' and thus not subject to the conversion protection—was reasonable and consistent with the City's own by-laws.

A former probationary instructor at the Ontario Police College sought judicial review of his 2003 dismissal.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay, as it was commenced nearly six years after the dismissal and perfected a year later.

The court granted the motion, finding the delay inordinate and excessive, the former employee's explanations inadequate, and that the delay caused prejudice to the moving parties given the remedy of reinstatement sought.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay the respondent repair shop for motor vehicle repairs.

The appellant argued the respondent failed to provide a written estimate or properly record his authorization as required by the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the repair shop had authorization and performed the work, its failure to comply with the strict provisions of the Act precluded recovery.

The Act provided a juristic reason for the appellant's enrichment, barring the respondent's claim in quantum meruit.