Romain Pitt

The tenant appealed a Tribunal decision regarding her ability to reasonably participate in a proceeding and a motion to set aside a default order.

The Divisional Court found the appeal to be moot.

Applying the Borowski factors, the court declined to hear the appeal, concluding that the issue was not of public importance requiring prompt resolution.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $1,500.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award concerning the interpretation of a collective agreement and an employee's status under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The court found the arbitrator's analysis of the collective agreement and the employee's status to be reasonable and dismissed the application with costs.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his certificate of registration for sexual abuse.

During the hearing, the College called an expert witness who was subsequently appointed to the Discipline Committee before the panel released its reasons.

The Divisional Court found that a reasonably informed bystander would conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the panel members had to weigh the expert's evidence while she was their colleague on the Committee.

The decision of the panel was quashed as void ab initio.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of sick leave credits under a collective agreement.

The applicant attempted to introduce affidavit evidence summarizing a witness's recollection of testimony to demonstrate the arbitrator's alleged errors.

The Divisional Court refused to admit the affidavit, finding no exceptional circumstances, and concluded the arbitrator did not lose jurisdiction.

The court held that the arbitrator's decision met the standard of reasonableness and dismissed the application with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of preliminary procedural rulings made by a university Faculty Disciplinary Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the discipline proceedings had not yet been completed and there was a right of appeal to the University Appeal Committee.

The court found no evidence of corruption or bias that would justify interfering at this stage.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it liable for rent arrears and property damage under a commercial lease.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to discount damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in interpreting the lease acknowledgment or assessing the evidence of damage to the premises.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for sexual and professional misconduct involving a 15-year-old vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the penalty was unduly harsh and that the committee failed to properly weigh expert and character evidence regarding his mental disorder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the committee's findings and the penalty of revocation were reasonably supported by the evidence, given the overwhelming aggravating factors.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a Tribunal decision that refused to direct the Registrar to carry out a proposal to revoke the respondent's registration.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by misdirecting itself on the obligations of a corporate director under the Business Corporations Act, misconstruing the respondent's ignorance of his statutory responsibilities, and ignoring relevant evidence of his role in the business.

The Court directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their second motion for summary judgment and other relief.

The motion judge had ruled that the dismissal of their first summary judgment motion rendered the determination of triable issues res judicata.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the conclusion that the finding of a genuine issue for trial was res judicata, as the appellants had failed to put their best foot forward on the first motion.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's implicit refusal to grant leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the appointment of an investigator by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario to examine their practices, and a stay of the investigations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting the well-established rule against piecemeal judicial review of administrative action absent exceptional circumstances.

The court held that the administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention.

In an addendum regarding costs, the court considered whether to depart from the general rule of awarding costs to the successful party on the basis that the legal issue was novel.

The court found that while the circumstances were unique, there were guiding authorities and significant preparation was required.

The court awarded costs to the successful party in the claimed amount of $5,915.04.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motions judge's order dismissing an application for judgment in accordance with minutes of settlement reached at mandatory mediation.

The settlement required the execution of a license agreement, but the parties could not agree on whether it should include an indemnification provision.

The motions judge found the settlement unenforceable as there was no agreement on essential terms.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that a decision would be of significant benefit to the profession.

The plaintiffs appealed a master's order removing their solicitors of record due to a conflict of interest.

The defendants argued that a U.S. counsel listed on the plaintiffs' law firm's letterhead had previously represented one of the defendants, creating a conflict.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the U.S. counsel was not a member of the firm, but merely had a referral arrangement.

Therefore, there was no solicitor-client relationship between the firm and the defendant, no presumption of shared confidences, and no disqualifying conflict of interest.