Robert A. Blair

In an addendum to a majority judgment, the Divisional Court clarified that the applicants were entitled to interest on damages payable out of the guarantee fund under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The court held that pursuant to the regulations, interest is payable at the Condominium Act rate and may increase the total payment beyond the standard $20,000 maximum limit.

Interest was ordered payable from the date the Warranty Program initially denied the claims.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for sexual assault and argued, among other grounds, that the trial judge failed to properly investigate allegations that jurors had communicated with the officer-in-charge during trial.

The Court of Appeal held that both actual fairness and the appearance of fairness required a fuller inquiry into the allegation.

Because the witness was not permitted to explain an inconsistency and the officer should at least have been called to testify, the inquiry was incomplete and inconclusive.

The resulting appearance of unfairness required that the conviction be set aside and a new trial ordered.

The Ministry appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding that the respondent was a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Ministry argued the Tribunal failed to consider sedentary employment possibilities and relied on unverified medical details.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the law, was entitled to consider the applicant's specific circumstances, and had ample evidence to support its factual findings.

The appeal was allowed only on consent to amend the starting date of payments.

The appellants purchased two condominiums as tax-sheltered investments.

The vendor failed to convey title, and the appellants obtained an unpaid judgment against the vendor.

The appellants applied to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program for compensation.

The Program and the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal denied compensation for business and investment costs, allowing only land and construction costs, and deducted tax savings.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation for the entire transaction, including service contracts integral to the condominium purchase, but agreed that tax savings must be deducted from the total financial loss.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for five offences arising from a single incident involving the respondent's estranged spouse and children.

The court held that a 12-month sentence, in addition to pre-trial custody, was manifestly unfit given the night-time armed break-in, death threats, aggravated assault on the spouse in the children's presence, and assault on a child who intervened.

While noting the respondent was a 53-year-old first offender, the court concluded a substantial penitentiary term was required and substituted a sentence of 3.5 years after applying the same pre-trial custody credit.

The court also held that the sentencing judge erred by failing to impose the mandatory s. 109 prohibition order and added a 10-year prohibition.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for libel.

The defendants pleaded alternative defamatory meanings and sought to justify them.

The motions judge struck out the defendants' particulars on the basis that they were oppressive to the plaintiffs, relying on the Polly Peck approach adopted in Pizza Pizza.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the court cannot strike a pleading or particulars in a libel action that are relevant, necessary, and of reasonable probative value solely on the ground of oppression.

The court must balance the probative value against the prejudicial effect under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant, a sitting member of the House of Commons, attempted to file nomination papers for the office of Mayor of Toronto.

The City Clerk rejected the nomination before nomination day on the basis that provincial legislation rendered members of the House of Commons ineligible to hold municipal office.

The applicant sought mandamus and an order quashing the relevant statutory provisions, arguing they violated his democratic rights under section 3 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the clerk had the discretion to reject the nomination early and that the restriction on holding municipal office did not infringe the applicant's Charter right to be qualified for membership in the House of Commons.

The Health Services Restructuring Commission issued directions that would significantly reduce the services and teaching capacity of Hôpital Montfort, Ontario's only francophone general hospital.

The applicants sought judicial review, arguing the directions violated s. 15 of the Charter, administrative law principles, and the unwritten constitutional principle of the protection of minorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Charter and administrative law arguments but granted the application on constitutional grounds.

The Court held that the protection of minorities is a fundamental organizing principle of the Constitution, and the Commission failed to act according to law by ignoring the broader institutional role of Montfort in preserving the Franco-Ontarian minority culture.