P.H. Howden

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed the Complaints Committee's dismissal of his complaints against three physicians.

The applicant disagreed with the physicians' medical opinions that his spinal condition was congenital rather than work-related.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions to be reasonable and dismissed the applications for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent physicians.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had to determine the meaning of 'without prejudice' in a prior arbitration decision and whether the current case was essentially the same as the prior one.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and found the arbitrator correctly applied labour arbitration principles rather than strict common law concepts.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings before the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, alleging that its witnesses had been interfered with by their supervisor.

During an adjournment, the LCBO retained an investigator to interview the witnesses.

The applicant sought to compel the investigator's attendance and the production of witness statements to support its stay motion.

The Commission refused to issue the summons, finding the evidence irrelevant.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Commission breached natural justice by precluding the applicant from leading material evidence.

The Court ordered the Commission to issue a summons for the investigator and require the production of the witness statements, finding they were not protected by solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

The applicant sought to appeal a decision dismissing his application under s. 83(1) of the Municipal Elections Act to disqualify the respondent mayor for alleged campaign finance violations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Audziss v. Santa, which held that an elector lacks standing to bring a private application to challenge campaign finances under s. 83.

The applicant's only remedy was to seek a compliance audit and appeal any refusal to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by an Arbitrator and the Director's Delegate, which found he was not injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule 1996.

The applicant, a taxicab driver, was struck on the head with a rock by an assailant while in his cab.

The Arbitrator found his injuries were caused solely by the assault and not by striking any part of the vehicle, thus failing the causation test for an 'accident'.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found the Tribunal's decisions were not only reasonable but correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenant brought a motion appealing the decision of Keenan J., which upheld a Tribunal order evicting her for disruptive conduct.

The tenant argued the Tribunal erred in finding her conduct continued after receiving an N5 notice, misapplied section 84(1) of the Tenant Protection Act, and failed to properly assess the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding overwhelming evidence that the landlord accommodated the tenant's disability to the point of undue hardship and that the Tribunal made no errors of law.

The appellant appealed the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the assessment of its commercial office building, arguing the Board failed to consider the assessed value of similar lands in the vicinity as required by s. 44(2) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court held that while s. 44(2) mandates consideration of similar properties' assessments, the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of such assessments before the Board.

Due to the inadequate evidentiary record, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that the testator's wife was the sole beneficiary of his estate.

The will, drafted on a stationer's form, contained ambiguous language granting the wife the estate 'for her use absolutely' but also included a gift over to the testator's nieces and nephews upon her death.

The Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, finding that the trial judge erred in applying the rule in Re Walker.

Applying the 'armchair rule' from Re Burke, the Court held that the testator's clear intention was to grant his wife a life interest in his half of the estate, with the remainder vesting in his nieces and nephews.

The applicant worker suffered a workplace injury and elected to receive workers' compensation benefits.

He subsequently commenced a civil action in negligence against the hospital, doctors, and college involved in his treatment.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal determined that the action against the hospital and its employees was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act, but the action against the doctor and college could proceed, despite the Board waiving its right of subrogation.

The applicants and the counter-applicant doctor sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether rights of action are taken away, and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for injuries sustained by a bus passenger when the driver braked suddenly to avoid a cyclist.

The trial judge awarded $22,500 in general damages for chronic back and hip strain, finding the injuries met the threshold under the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the defendants argued the trial judge erred in finding negligence, assessing the medical evidence, and failing to draw an adverse inference from the plaintiff not calling her initial treating physician.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and negligence.

The judgment was varied on consent only to correct a mathematical error in the statutory deductible.

The applicant, a First Nations Constable, sought judicial review of the termination of his appointment by the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commissioner had terminated the appointment on the basis that the applicant's employment as a Band Constable had been terminated by the Band Council, without providing details of the alleged misconduct or consulting further.

The Divisional Court found that the Commissioner failed to comply with the statutory duties under subsections 54(4) and (7) of the Police Services Act, which require consultation and the provision of reasonable information regarding the reasons for termination.

The court quashed the termination and remitted the matter to the Commissioner to be dealt with according to procedural fairness.

The applicant's request for a declaration of entitlement to wages was deferred to a separate civil action.