Divisional Court

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board decisions ordering the issuance of demolition permits for thirteen buildings.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the respondents filed their appeal after the time limit in section 3 of the City of Toronto Act, 1985 had expired.

The Board had found this time limit conflicted with the Planning Act and assumed jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdictional decision, holding that the two statutes could co-exist without conflict.

However, the Court found no reason to doubt the Board's decision on the merits.

Leave to appeal was granted solely on the jurisdictional question.

The applicant police officers sought judicial review of two interlocutory decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordering the production of records concerning prior complaints against them.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for prematurity, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings before the Tribunal.

The tenant was evicted following a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy.

He brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the decision and for an order permitting him to return to the rented premises pending the appeal, citing language barriers as the reason for missing the deadline.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time and permitted the tenant to return to the premises, subject to conditions including expediting the appeal and paying all rent on time.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit during a union certification process.

The Board had excluded 11 drivers based on the 'greatest attachment' test and 15 employees under the 'office and clerical' exception.

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

The Court found that the Board reasonably applied the greatest attachment test given the agreed-upon geographical limitation of the bargaining unit, and reasonably concluded that the disputed employees' duties were administrative in nature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting judgment of $13,413.04 to the respondent, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to deference absent a palpable and overriding error.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained his conclusions and provided a sufficient basis for appellate review.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found them liable for a $15,653 breach of contract committed by the main defendant, Nicholas Bulut, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against all defendants without hearing submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding no legal basis in contract, corporate veil piercing, or unjust enrichment to hold the other defendants liable for Nicholas Bulut's breach.

The Court also set aside the trial judge's costs award due to a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice, as the trial judge refused to hear submissions.

The Court substituted its own costs order, awarding the appellants partial indemnity costs from the date of their Rule 49 offer to settle.

The Town of Oakville appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that stayed a zoning by-law against the respondents, who were growing crops on contaminated former refinery lands zoned industrial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby denying natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court held as a matter of law that 'farming' is a land use, not a 'normal farm practice', and the Farming and Food Production Protection Act cannot be used to introduce a new agricultural use on land where farming is prohibited by a valid zoning by-law.

The plaintiffs sued their insurer for terminating statutory accident benefits based on reports from health care professionals retained by the insurer under s. 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On discovery, the plaintiffs sought to ask questions that amounted to cross-examining these experts.

The motion judge held that the experts were not 'experts' within the meaning of Rule 31.06(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus the prohibition against cross-examination did not apply.

The Divisional Court allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the clear wording of Rule 31.06(3) covers experts engaged by a party for a purpose other than litigation, including s. 42 assessors.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved the officer issuing but failing to serve six traffic tickets, resulting in an innocent man being wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for five days.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, upholding the findings of misconduct, and concluding that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the egregious nature of the officer's actions and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The appellants appealed the imposition of two conditions on an order for the partition and sale of a commercial property, while the respondents cross-appealed seeking to reverse the order for sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of co-ownership but set aside the condition requiring the prior payment of $1 million, finding that conflicting evidence regarding payment required a trial.

The court held that the sale could not proceed until the issues of payment and alleged oppression were resolved at trial.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part.

The appellant, a senior insurance agency employee, appealed the dismissal of her wrongful dismissal claim.

The trial judge found she was dismissed for just cause after deliberately manipulating her own auto insurance policy to avoid paying $4,600 in annual premiums, breaching the duty of utmost good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the misconduct justified summary dismissal.

The plaintiff brought motions for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders that dismissed a motion to continue an ex parte Anton Piller order and dismissed subsequent motions for relief under Rules 30 and 45.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge properly considered the matter de novo and correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case to justify continuing the intrusive order.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the orders and no denial of natural justice.

Air Canada sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that directed it to offer 90 denied Voluntary Separation Program (VSP) applications to eligible employees.

Air Canada argued the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by modifying the collective agreement and interfering with management rights.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the arbitrator was properly interpreting the quantitative language of the Memorandum of Understanding, which required the maximum number of VSPs to be granted.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The third party insurer sought leave to appeal a motion judge's comments regarding alternative relief under Rules 20 and 21.

The motion judge had granted the insurer's primary request to stay the main action and third party claim, but commented in obiter that he would have dismissed the alternative relief had he not granted the stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's hypothetical comments did not constitute an appealable interlocutory order.

The applicant employer successfully sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, resulting in the reinstatement of the grievor's employment termination.

The parties agreed the applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs, leaving only the quantum to be determined.

The court assessed the claimed fees and disbursements, reducing the fees to $10,000 and disbursements to $2,535, noting the complexity of the proceeding and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party under Rule 57.01(1).

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of its property, and an extension of time to file the notice of application.

The Board had assessed the property based solely on its recent purchase price, without adjusting for the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity as required by the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time, finding the statutory time limit to be procedural and the delay adequately explained.

The Court also granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision and that the interpretation of the equity provisions in the Assessment Act raised an issue of law of significance.