Ralph Aaron Rubinoff

The applicant career college sought judicial review of a decision by Accreditation Canada to revoke the accreditation of its Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program, and the Superintendent's subsequent decision to revoke the program's approval.

Accreditation Canada brought a motion to stay the judicial review proceedings under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the accreditation contract.

The Divisional Court found that while the accreditation decision was an exercise of statutory authority with sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review, the technical requirements for a mandatory stay in favour of arbitration were met.

The court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and that the subject matter was capable of being arbitrated.

The motion to stay the judicial review was granted.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that it had the right to early terminate a commercial lease and an order for the respondent tenant to vacate.

The lease, originally from 1994, had been extended and amended multiple times.

The dispute centered on whether a landlord's early termination right, present in previous lease iterations and linked to the tenant's right of first refusal, continued to apply under the most recent "Lease Amendment and Extension Agreement" from 2016, which did not explicitly mention the provision.

The court found that the landlord failed to demonstrate a continuing right of early termination during the current lease term (2022-2027), as the specific language of the agreements limited this right to particular renewal terms that had expired.

The application was dismissed, allowing the tenant to remain in occupation until the lease's expiry in 2027.

The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs.

The plaintiffs, a Ukrainian national residing abroad and a British Virgin Islands corporation with no Ontario assets, argued that Mr. Spektor's shares in Black Iron Inc. (BKI) were sufficient assets and that the defendants' wealth and a forum selection clause should negate or reduce the security.

The court found the BKI shares too volatile and illiquid due to the war in Ukraine and trading volume to serve as sufficient security.

It rejected arguments based on the forum selection clause and the defendants' affluence, distinguishing the case from Yaiguaje.

The motion for security for costs was granted, with the plaintiffs ordered to post $270,000 in installments, a reduction from the $318,000 sought, primarily due to the counterclaim.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a national policy grievance.

The grievance alleged the employer's policy regarding the transfer of employees with permanent partial disabilities violated the collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator breached procedural fairness due to a five-year delay in rendering the decision and by relying on a provision of the collective agreement not raised by the parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delay did not cause significant prejudice and the arbitrator was entitled to consider the entire collective agreement.

The court also held the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the duty to accommodate was reasonable.

The plaintiff, the Medical Council of Canada, brought an unopposed motion for a partial sealing order in an action alleging the defendants appropriated confidential clinical examination exercises for a preparatory course.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and granted the sealing order to protect the integrity of the examination system, the identity of a whistleblower, personal information of the defendants, and the identities of course participants.

The appellants, holding foreign arbitral awards against the Kyrgyz Republic, sought declarations that the Republic owned shares in Centerra Gold Inc. registered to Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, a state-owned corporation.

The applications judge dismissed the applications, finding no evidence of a transfer of rights, express trust, or resulting trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the governing agreement unambiguously established Kyrgyzaltyn as the beneficial owner of the shares and that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by the evidence of intention.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order that set aside a Mareva injunction but declined to do so on the basis of material non-disclosure, and which did not preclude the responding party from bringing a fresh motion for injunctive relief.

The moving party also sought leave to appeal the costs disposition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there was no conflicting decision and the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order striking out an affidavit filed in opposition to an application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award.

The motion judge had struck the affidavit on the basis that it was clearly irrelevant and scandalous.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on matters of principle and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The plaintiffs discontinued their main action, and the defendants subsequently abandoned their counterclaim and third party claim.

The defendants brought a motion for costs of the main action, arguing the plaintiffs' claim was devoid of merit and that the counterclaim and third party claim were a natural consequence.

The court found the main action was not self-evidently frivolous and held that each party should be entitled to recover the costs of defending the proceeding launched against them on a partial indemnity scale.

The calculation of costs was referred for assessment.

The appellant, a permanent golfing member of a share capital social club, sought to transfer to a social membership category while retaining his Class B voting share.

The club's board adopted a policy requiring members transferring out of permanent golfing categories to resign, thereby cancelling their voting shares, and reapply.

The appellant argued this policy unlawfully varied his share rights under the Corporations Act.

The court held that the policy did not vary share rights, as the appellant could keep his share by remaining in his current category, and the policy was a reasonable exercise of the board's authority.

The court also determined that the appeal properly lay to the Divisional Court, reconstituting itself to dismiss the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in a complex software copyright and breach of confidence action.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful.

The plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $1,110,000 in security for costs, payable in three installments, to balance the defendants' need for protection with the risk of stifling the litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, ethnicity, and place of origin.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim arose from the same factual context and sought remedies for the same alleged infringements regarding ethnicity and place of origin.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those allegations for lack of jurisdiction and directed the applicant to provide further particulars if she wished to proceed with the age discrimination claim.

Following an appeal, cross-appeal, and fresh evidence motion where the respondents were successful, the parties made submissions on costs.

The respondents claimed over $98,000 in total on a partial indemnity scale, while the appellants argued no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, a significantly reduced amount.

Applying the Boucher principles, the Court of Appeal fixed costs at $30,000 for the Receiver and $7,500 for the trust company, noting the appellants' alternative of not suing and the trust company's minor role in the appeal.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order approving a court-appointed receiver's recommendation to sell a contaminated property to the polluter and settle related damage claims.

The appellants argued the property and claims were undervalued and sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging the motion judge was pressured into releasing his decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the receiver acted providentially and the settlement was commercially reasonable.

The Court allowed the receiver's cross-appeal, setting aside the motion judge's order granting the appellants leave to sue the receiver, as the motion judge applied the wrong legal test.