Sidney N. Lederman

The appellants, plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1782 against a non-party, Bloomberg.

The respondents successfully moved before the case management judge for an order requiring the appellants to obtain authorization under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure before taking any steps to enforce the subpoena.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly held that the appellants could not use the U.S. process to circumvent Ontario's strict rules on pre-certification discovery of non-parties, and that the appellants had failed to make full and fair disclosure to the U.S. court.

The applicant, a former probationary professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination and reprisal application against the university.

The Tribunal had found her application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, calculating the time from the date she was denied tenure rather than her final day of employment or the denial of her grievance.

The Tribunal also dismissed her reprisal claim and denied her request to amend the application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, finding that the denial of tenure was the triggering event and that there was no evidence of an intention to retaliate by the university.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it had discriminated against the respondent.

The respondent was subjected to a racial slur by another customer at a court services office.

While most City staff responded promptly and appropriately, the Tribunal found discrimination based on one clerk's inadequate response.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review and quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that it was unreasonable to find a poisoned environment and fix corporate responsibility on the City based on the inconsequential conduct of a single non-supervisory employee when the overall response was appropriate.

The applicants sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision that upheld an arbitrator's exclusion of the applicant's documents and witnesses due to late service, and ordered costs personally against the applicant's lawyers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness in the refusal to allow an affidavit explaining the delay or in the exclusion of non-expert witnesses.

The court also held that the order for costs against the lawyers personally was reasonable given the blatant disregard of the procedural rules.

The applicant, the Mayor of the Township of Springwater, sought judicial review of a decision by the Township's Compliance Audit Committee to order a second, 'forensic' audit of his election campaign finances after finding the first audit unsatisfactory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the court should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found that the Committee's decision to order a second audit involved the interpretation of its home statute and was not a true question of jurisdiction.

The court also limited the Committee's standing on the judicial review to jurisdictional issues and confirmed that the Committee's term had not expired.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order releasing over $450,000 held in trust as security to the defendants.

The funds were deposited pursuant to an undertaking in exchange for the discharge of a construction lien.

The Master had ordered the release of the funds because the plaintiffs failed to set the action down for trial within two years, reasoning that the funds were akin to security paid into court to vacate a lien under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in conflating the discharge of a lien with vacating a lien, and that the undertaking clearly intended the funds to be held pending final resolution of the dispute.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award that reduced the penalty imposed on two firefighters for off-duty impaired driving convictions.

The firefighters had lost their driver's licenses and were demoted for one year by the City.

The arbitrator substituted a two-day suspension, finding the demotions were disciplinary and the firefighters could still perform their core duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's exercise of discretion to substitute the penalty was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The appeal raised an important issue regarding the jurisdiction of a Discipline Committee over a member's prior conduct.

As the respondents did not participate, the Divisional Court adjourned the appeal and granted leave under Rule 13.03 to request Pro Bono Law Ontario to appoint amicus curiae to assist the court.

The defendant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the plaintiff employee damages for wrongful dismissal, mental distress, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court upheld the wrongful dismissal damages, finding no error in the motion judge's calculation of the notice period.

However, the court set aside the $7,500 award for mental distress, finding that the employer acted in good faith and there was insufficient evidence of compensable mental distress.

The court also allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial costs from $35,000 to $10,000, noting the motion judge failed to properly consider proportionality and the unreasonableness of the plaintiff's bill of costs.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of defence for failing to comply with multiple interlocutory orders, including a discovery plan.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraudulent conveyance.

The Divisional Court found that the appellants had a history of contumelious conduct, delay, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court held that the Master made no palpable and overriding error in striking the pleadings, and the appeal was dismissed.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating the tenancy and ordering eviction for rental arrears.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by misinterpreting sections 7(1)2 and 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding rent increases.

The Divisional Court found that the Board made factual findings that the rental unit was exempt from guideline rent increases and that the lease agreement did not conflict with the Act.

As appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law, and the tenant raised no bona fide questions of law, the motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision which held that the respondent insured was entitled to interest at 2% per month on overdue statutory accident benefits.

The insured's accident occurred after the New Regulation (O. Reg. 34/10) came into effect, but her policy was issued before that date.

The Divisional Court found the Delegate's decision unreasonable, holding that the clear wording of the New Regulation applied to all accidents occurring on or after September 1, 2010, rebutting any presumption against interference with vested rights.

The application for judicial review was granted and the Delegate's decision was quashed.

The appellant appealed a decision finding his conduct in connection with a family business was oppressive and removing him as a director, officer, and trustee.

The appellant had emptied the company's bank account, attempted to exclude his daughters from the account, and used corporate funds for personal purposes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellant breached his fiduciary duties.

The court held that the remedy of removing him from his roles was appropriate and consistent with the parties' reasonable expectations, given his conduct and the divisive family relationship.

The appellant appealed an order discharging a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that it had obtained ex parte.

The Master had discharged the CPL on the grounds of material non-disclosure and that the appellant did not have a reasonable claim to an interest in the land based on an easement for a storm water pond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master did not exceed her jurisdiction, made no palpable and overriding error in finding material non-disclosure, correctly concluded that the preconditions for the easement had not been met, and did not exhibit a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that police officers discriminated against him based on race when they arrested and charged him following a neighbour dispute.

The applicant argued the HRTO's decision was unreasonable, alleging the police response was disproportionate and influenced by racial stereotypes, and that the HRTO showed bias in its credibility assessments and drawing of adverse inferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO applied the correct legal principles, its credibility findings were entitled to high deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision that dismissed its application for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had refused to allow the union to amend an incorrect application filing date, finding that the amendment would cause material prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's discretionary decision to relieve from compliance with its rules was reasonable and entitled to deference, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator had preferred the medical evidence of the respondent's physiatrist over the appellant's physiatrist, concluding the appellant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator applied the correct legal test and that weighing conflicting medical evidence does not constitute an error of law.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace facing a judicial misconduct complaint, brought a motion for a temporary stay of the Hearing Panel's proceedings pending his application for judicial review of the Complaints Committee's decision to refer the matter to a hearing.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to quash the judicial review application for prematurity.

The court held that the judicial review application was manifestly premature, as all of the applicant's arguments could be raised before the Hearing Panel.

The court also dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for a stay of proceedings.

The plaintiff subcontractor appealed a Small Claims Court order striking out its claims for unpaid invoices and breach of trust as statute-barred.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring uncontradicted evidence that the defendants' promises to pay may have extended the limitation period.

The court also held it was premature to strike the breach of trust claims before documentary discovery could establish when the contractor received funds from the owner, which triggers the trust and the limitation period.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that the appellant was not financially eligible for ODSP income support due to her receipt of long-term disability insurance benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision involved a question of mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the ODSPA, and that the Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable.