Robert A. Centa

This is a preliminary motion ruling on appeals of Compliance Audit Committee decisions to order compliance audits of election campaign finances.

The appellants sought to have the appeals conducted as hearings de novo, while the respondents and the Committee argued the appeals should be limited to a review of the record.

The court determined that absent a clear statutory mandate to the contrary, appeals must take the form of a review of the record rather than de novo hearings.

The court rejected arguments that deficiencies in the record, the Committee's failure to provide reasons, or the prematurity of the audit application warranted a de novo hearing format.

The applicants, two former graduate students, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding their expulsion from a university program.

They subsequently filed a civil statement of claim against the university and individual respondents based on the identical facts, alleging a breach of the Human Rights Code and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Code acts as a mandatory bar to the applications because a civil proceeding had been commenced seeking remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a graduate student, sought judicial review of a university decision to dismiss him for plagiarism, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to an unexplained delay of over 21 months in commencing the application and a further 9 months in perfecting it.

The Court also found no merit to the applicant's allegations of procedural unfairness, noting that the disciplinary process was conducted without undue delay and the applicant was afforded appropriate procedural rights.

The moving parties, defendant solicitors in a professional negligence action, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to stay the action.

The plaintiff had previously settled a family law dispute with her husband and signed a release protecting him from third-party claims.

The solicitors issued a third-party claim against the husband for contribution and indemnity and sought to stay the plaintiff's action based on the release.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no legal basis for the third-party claim against the husband, as contribution under the Negligence Act applies only to joint tortfeasors, not to concurrent breaches of contract and tort.

The licensee appealed a Director's ruling that suspended his licence, imposed an $8,000 fine, and placed him on probation.

At the hearing, the parties proposed a consent order addressing procedural matters, including disclosure, witness statements, electronic hearings, and the adjournment of remaining motions.

The Panel accepted the proposed consent order, extended the stay of the suspension, and remained seized of the matter.

The appellant, a former partner at the respondent law firm, appealed the dismissal of his action against the firm.

He alleged that the firm's management owed and breached a fiduciary duty to warn him that his remuneration would be significantly reduced under a newly implemented compensation system, which would have prompted him to withdraw from the partnership earlier.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that no such fiduciary duty existed under the partnership agreement or at common law, that no breach was proven even if a duty existed, and that the appellant was already aware his compensation would likely decrease.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The appellants, out-of-province resort operators, appealed decisions dismissing their motions to stay or dismiss personal injury actions for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal convened a five-judge panel to reconsider the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction.

The Court modified the Muscutt test by elevating the weight given to Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a presumption of a real and substantial connection for most of its subrules.

The Court also collapsed the fairness factors and clarified the distinction between jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

Applying the revised test, the Court found a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the appellants in both cases and upheld the motion judges' decisions that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

The applicant sought an interim order staying the university's decision to expel him for academic misconduct pending his application for judicial review.

The university's Senate Appeals Committee had concluded that the applicant knowingly submitted falsified documents in support of an appeal from a plagiarism charge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for interim relief, finding that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof required for an interim stay, but ordered the judicial review to be heard on an expedited basis.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which found she committed professional misconduct by financially exploiting a vulnerable psychiatric patient.

The appellant had failed to attend the disciplinary hearing, claiming late disclosure of documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that by choosing not to attend the hearing, the appellant waived her right to raise procedural fairness and evidentiary objections.

The court also upheld the penalty, which included revocation of her certificate of registration, a $15,000 fine, and costs, as reasonable given the serious abuse of the nurse-patient relationship.

The self-represented applicant, a former dentist whose license was permanently revoked following disciplinary hearings, applied for judicial review of an earlier interim suspension and sought various other orders against the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the request to review the interim suspension was moot because the applicant's license had already been permanently revoked and all appeals exhausted.

The court also dismissed the applicant's requests for damages, return of patient files, and injunctions, characterizing the claims as vexatious and an abuse of process.

Full indemnity costs of $31,761 were awarded to the College.

The appellant, an informal committee of senior debenture holders, sought leave to appeal orders made by the supervising judge in a CCAA restructuring.

The orders authorized the debtor company to enter into agreements with stakeholders and a finance provider to facilitate a proposed plan of arrangement.

The appellant argued the judge lacked jurisdiction to make orders that entrenched elements of a plan before creditor approval and that the plan was doomed to fail.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the supervising judge had broad jurisdiction under s. 11 of the CCAA to move the restructuring process forward, provided the creditors retained their final right to vote on the plan under s. 6.

During a CCAA restructuring of Stelco Inc., the board of directors appointed two new directors who were associated with major shareholders.

Employee stakeholders, fearing the new directors would favour shareholder interests over employee interests in the restructuring, successfully applied to the supervising judge to have the directors removed based on a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, holding that the supervising judge lacked inherent jurisdiction or statutory authority under section 11 of the CCAA to remove duly appointed directors.

The Court further held that the administrative law concept of reasonable apprehension of bias does not apply to corporate directors, whose conduct is governed by fiduciary duties and the business judgment rule.

The appellant, a mortgagee in possession, sought to terminate a fixed-term residential lease on 60 days' notice pursuant to section 53(4) of the Mortgages Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's finding that section 51(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, which requires termination at the end of the fixed term, is paramount due to the primacy clause in section 2(4) of the Tenant Protection Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Toronto's appeal panel, which upheld a penalty of a zero grade for a course due to plagiarism.

The applicant argued that the penalty effectively prevented him from re-enrolling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no manifest unfairness or violation of natural justice.

The court noted that the appeal panel had considered fresh evidence regarding the applicant's academic record and reasonably concluded that the trial panel did not intend to impose a sanction that would necessarily permit re-enrollment if the student was otherwise ineligible.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices by the employer, a university students' association.

The employer terminated two employees who were key union organizers and engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation during the organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained due to the employer's contraventions, the Board exercised its discretion under section 9.2 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.