P.H. Howden

In a high‑conflict custody dispute following marital breakdown, the applicant mother alleged the respondent father had engaged in extensive parental alienation, while the father alleged longstanding abusive discipline by the mother.

Evidence included psychological assessments, extensive recorded conversations between the father and children, and testimony from therapists and medical professionals.

The court found the father had engaged in significant alienating conduct that damaged the children’s relationship with their mother, though the mother’s rigid parenting style also contributed to the family dysfunction.

Despite these findings, the court concluded an immediate transfer of custody would risk further harm, particularly to the older child who was severely enmeshed with the father and experiencing depression.

Custody remained temporarily with the father under supervision of the Children’s Aid Society, with structured reunification therapy and a scheduled judicial review.

The plaintiff drywall contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant homeowner for unpaid work and extras on a custom home project.

The parties disputed the contract price, whether certain work constituted extras, alleged cash payments, and back-charges for incomplete work and mold remediation.

The court found the defendant fundamentally breached the contract by failing to pay and denying the plaintiff access to the site.

The court awarded the plaintiff $78,262.50 plus partial GST, allowing some claims for extras while crediting the defendant for incomplete work, and dismissed the defendant's claims regarding cash payments and mold remediation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action arising from a bicycle accident allegedly caused by the defendants' dog, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $294,000.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendants' settlement offers lacked a substantive element of compromise and the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible.

Furthermore, the court reduced the defendants' partial indemnity costs by 40% to penalize their counsel's failure to disclose surveillance evidence, veterinary records, and other documents prior to trial, which undermined the policy of early settlement and full disclosure.

A contractor commenced a construction lien action seeking payment of the outstanding balance under a contract to convert a crawlspace into an unfinished basement.

The homeowners defended and counterclaimed alleging delay, abandonment, and negligent work causing structural damage to the property.

The trial was bifurcated to determine liability for the shifting of foundation underpinning and basement walls after excavation and backfilling.

The court found the contractor failed to properly monitor the site, arrange required inspections, and manage construction delays in a project where time was of the essence, which contributed significantly to soil instability and structural movement.

Although the homeowners contributed by failing to promptly report flooding and by refusing to authorize an engineering report, the contractor bore the majority of responsibility.

During a criminal trial for possession of cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the court ruled on the admissibility of police surveillance observations and text messages retrieved from the accused’s cell phone.

The defence argued that surveillance evidence of alleged hand‑to‑hand drug transactions constituted impermissible prior discreditable conduct and that a police officer should not be permitted to give opinion evidence.

The court held the surveillance evidence was directly relevant circumstantial evidence relating to possession on the charged date and permitted the officer to provide lay opinion evidence based on observations under the principles from R v Graat.

The court also addressed the admissibility of text messages allegedly using coded language related to drug transactions.

Messages from approximately six weeks prior were excluded due to their prejudicial effect, while messages from the day before and the day of the alleged offence were admitted subject to proof of electronic record integrity under the Canada Evidence Act.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision that struck portions of their statement of claim for injurious affection and refused to order the production of certain settlement agreements and reports.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by requiring an application under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a condition precedent for production, as the Act does not limit information otherwise available in litigation.

The court upheld the striking of the pleadings due to fundamental flaws but granted the appellants leave to amend their statement of claim to properly plead injurious affection.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which had ruled that a law firm was not in a conflict of interest and could continue representing the respondents.

The law firm had previously represented the applicant local union before it was placed in trusteeship.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

Applying the MacDonald Estate test, the Court found the law firm possessed relevant confidential information and there was a risk of prejudice to the former client.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was quashed, and the law firm was ordered to cease acting against its former client.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario revoking its liquor licence.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding noise issues that had the potential to fundamentally alter the Board's conclusion on the public interest.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing, with interim conditions imposed on the appellant's operations.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that voided a four-day suspension imposed on a grievor.

The Board had found that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to advise the grievor of his right to union representation during a police interview at which a supervisor was present.

The Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

Finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement and its application of the automatic voiding remedy were not patently unreasonable, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision making her three children Crown wards, with the youngest child made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother argued the trial judge failed to explicitly consider the children's native heritage, erred in finding the youngest child adoptable without expert evidence, and erred in denying sibling access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge implicitly considered the native heritage provisions, expert evidence of adoptability was unnecessary for a healthy three-year-old, and the decision to prioritize adoption over sibling access was open to the trial judge.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of the College of Nurses' acquisition of her occupational health and safety records from her former employer without her consent.

The employer had terminated the applicant for cause and reported incidents of professional misconduct to the College.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the records constituted personal health information under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, the Act expressly permitted their disclosure to the College for regulatory purposes.

Furthermore, the College's investigator had broad statutory authority under the Health Professions Procedural Code to request and examine the records.

The tenant appealed an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order terminating her tenancy and evicting her for impairing safety and causing property damage.

The tenant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly identified the legal obligations and that what constitutes reasonable accommodation is a question of fact, not law.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of decisions by a FSCO arbitrator and Director's delegate finding that the respondent insured suffered a catastrophic impairment under s. 2(1.1)(e)(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted 'reasonable period of time' for a Glasgow Coma Scale score.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review is patent unreasonableness and the tribunal's decisions were supported by evidence and within its specialized jurisdiction.

The appellant sought costs of approximately $8,900 for an appeal and a leave motion regarding the timing of payment of costs ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The Divisional Court noted that the appeal was brought for strategic purposes to force the respondents to pay costs before trial or forfeit their right to proceed.

Finding that the appeal was entirely unnecessary from any other perspective, the court declined to award costs to any party.

The applicant teacher was acquitted of criminal charges relating to alleged sexual misconduct with a former student in 1991.

The Ontario College of Teachers subsequently brought disciplinary proceedings against him under 1997 regulations.

The discipline committee refused the applicant's request for an adjournment, proceeded in his absence, admitted the criminal trial transcript and judge's obiter findings without adequate reasons, and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the committee breached natural justice by arbitrarily refusing the adjournment and failing to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Court also held that applying the 1997 regulations to 1991 conduct offended the rule against retrospective application of legislation.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay compensation to an employee terminated shortly after returning from maternity leave.

The applicant argued the employee had quit and alleged procedural unfairness in the investigation and hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the Board's factual findings and decision to award compensation were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The respondent tripped and fell on a city sidewalk, sustaining a shoulder injury.

She commenced an action against the city six months later, beyond the three-month limitation period in the Municipal Act.

The motion judge dismissed the city's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the respondent discovered the severity of her injury.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the decision, holding that the limitation period begins when the plaintiff knows some damage has occurred, not when the full extent of the injury is diagnosed.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellant, a natural gas distributor, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that denied the recovery of interest and regulatory costs associated with $531,794 in prudently incurred but late-reported gas costs.

The Board had allowed the recovery of the principal amount over three years to mitigate the impact on customers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision involved policy considerations and rate-setting expertise, was subject to a reasonableness standard of review, and was a reasonable balancing of utility and customer interests.

The appellant appealed an order of a motion judge who held that costs ordered by the Court of Appeal, which did not specify a payment date, were payable at the conclusion of the litigation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in applying previous case law regarding interlocutory motions to a final disposition of an appeal.

The Court also noted that under Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the norm is now that costs are payable within 30 days unless otherwise ordered.