Divisional Court

The applicant sought judicial review of a Social Benefits Tribunal decision denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by overlooking medical evidence and his inability to function in the workplace.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal correctly interpreted the legislation, properly considered the medical evidence, and made credibility findings that supported its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a person with a disability.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal that revoked remedial orders against a former corporate officer (Lee) and an innocent current property owner (Montague) regarding historical contamination.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal regarding Lee, finding the Tribunal erred in law by applying too narrow a test for 'management or control' and failing to consider his liability for waste removal.

The appeal regarding Montague was dismissed, as the Tribunal correctly found she did not cause or permit the discharge and properly exercised its discretion on fairness grounds to relieve her of financial responsibility for the cleanup.

The applicant sought judicial review of two awards by the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board regarding the divestment of young offender facilities.

The Board found the applicant breached the collective agreement by failing to require new operators to recognize employees' seniority, and awarded a blanket monetary remedy to all affected employees based on years of service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's collective remedy was appropriate and reasonable in the labour relations context, despite the applicant's argument that individual losses should have been assessed.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sought leave to extend the time to appeal a Master's decision that refused him leave to amend his statement of claim against Legal Aid Ontario.

The plaintiff had initially filed the appeal in the wrong court and delayed significantly in transferring it to the Divisional Court despite being notified of the error.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay inordinate and poorly explained, the proposed appeal entirely without merit, and that further delay would prejudice the self-represented defendant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for an anti-suit injunction and staying their counterclaims in Ontario pending the resolution of parallel proceedings in Delaware and Illinois.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The motion judge correctly applied the Amchem test and concluded that the foreign forums were more appropriate, noting that the jurisdiction clause in the parties' agreement was not exclusive.

Professional Supply Canada Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited brought a motion to be added as intervenors and parties to an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged a variance granted by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority for the installation of direct gas-fired heaters at Ford Canada's facilities.

The court found that both moving parties had a significant financial interest in the proceedings, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and would provide a unique perspective.

The motion was granted, and the moving parties were added as respondents.

Following a successful appeal that allowed the plaintiffs to add Canada Post Corporation as a defendant, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The court upheld the agreed $5,000 for the motion, now payable by Canada Post.

For the appeal, the plaintiffs sought $16,073.36 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the hourly rates claimed, disallowed fees for a second counsel, and fixed the appeal costs at $8,750 plus disbursements, applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the losing party to pay.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that interpreted a collective agreement's scope clause to include owner-operators in Cambridge, expanding the bargaining unit beyond the geographic parameters of the original Canada Labour Relations Board certificate.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was subject to a standard of patent unreasonableness, while her interpretation of the Canada Labour Code was subject to a standard of reasonableness.

The court held that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to recognize a bargaining unit expanded by mutual agreement and that her interpretation was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Toronto Transit Commission sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that found a two-year lockout for employees failing safety training to be unreasonable.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the board acted unreasonably by implying a duty on the employer to act reasonably without identifying any express language in the collective agreement limiting management rights, nor finding bad faith or disciplinary action.

The award was quashed and remitted to the board to consider whether the lockout intruded on seniority or working conditions provisions, or constituted a disciplinary penalty.

The plaintiff's action was struck from the trial list after he failed to attend the trial.

Five years later, a motion judge restored the action, applying the test for dismissal for delay.

The defendant appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by not applying the test for setting aside a judgment for failure to attend trial, which requires the plaintiff to explain the failure to attend, explain the delay in seeking relief, and demonstrate that the action has merit.

Given the plaintiff's unexplained five-year delay and lack of evidence showing merit, the appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The Attorney General applied for judicial review of a Consent and Capacity Board decision which held that the Board had jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of the community treatment order (CTO) provisions of the Mental Health Act.

The Divisional Court applied the Martin test and concluded that the Board's mandate involves applying facts to prescribed statutory criteria, not deciding questions of law.

Furthermore, the strict statutory timelines for Board hearings rebut any presumption of jurisdiction to hear complex Charter challenges.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the Board's decision on jurisdiction was quashed.

The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal a decision setting aside a default judgment and a vesting order.

The plaintiff argued there was a denial of procedural fairness because the motion judge did not hear oral argument on setting aside the default judgment, and that the decision conflicted with established case law regarding vesting orders under the Land Titles Act.

The Divisional Court denied leave, finding no breach of fundamental fairness given the full written arguments submitted, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision, and no conflicting decision as the plaintiff was not an innocent third party.

The appellant real estate agency appealed the dismissal of its claim for commissions against the respondents.

The trial judge found the listing agreement invalid because the agent failed to leave a copy with the vendor, as required by section 35 of the Business Brokers Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the Court noted the trial judge erred in concluding that failure to post the listing on MLS within two days invalidated the agreement, and that agents are required to verify a vendor's authority or sole ownership before signing a listing agreement.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to file facta in excess of the 30-page limit prescribed by the Practice Direction under Rule 61, seeking a maximum of 160 pages each, and for an order fixing the assigned times for oral submissions.

The court found that while some latitude was required, the case essentially involved a battle of experts on damages with no liability issues.

The court granted leave to file facta up to 55 pages.

The request to set time limits for oral argument was dismissed as premature.

The appellant employee appealed a decision dismissing his motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages and ESA entitlements.

The motion judge had held that ESA standards were only enforceable through administrative procedures and were alternatives to common law damages.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that ESA entitlements can be claimed in a civil action and are not subject to mitigation, as they are statutory minimums, not damages.

The Court granted summary judgment for the outstanding balance of the appellant's ESA entitlements.

The appellant appealed a judgment evicting her from her co-operative housing unit and ordering her to pay rent arrears.

She argued the trial judge failed to exercise his discretion under s. 171 of the Co-operative Corporations Act to refuse the eviction, alleging she relinquished her rent subsidy due to misrepresentations by the co-operative's board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's fact-finding and no error in principle in his exercise of discretion to grant the eviction.