Sidney N. Lederman

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to extend the time for serving a notice of hearing for disciplinary proceedings.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that the Commissioner's decision was interlocutory and administrative in nature.

The court emphasized the general principle against fragmenting administrative proceedings and noted that the applicant could raise any issues of prejudice or delay before the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant police officers sought judicial review of two interlocutory decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordering the production of records concerning prior complaints against them.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for prematurity, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings before the Tribunal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit during a union certification process.

The Board had excluded 11 drivers based on the 'greatest attachment' test and 15 employees under the 'office and clerical' exception.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found that the Board reasonably applied the greatest attachment test given the agreed-upon geographical limitation of the bargaining unit, and reasonably concluded that the disputed employees' duties were administrative in nature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found them liable for a $15,653 breach of contract committed by the main defendant, Nicholas Bulut, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against all defendants without hearing submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding no legal basis in contract, corporate veil piercing, or unjust enrichment to hold the other defendants liable for Nicholas Bulut's breach.

The Court also set aside the trial judge's costs award due to a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice, as the trial judge refused to hear submissions.

The Court substituted its own costs order, awarding the appellants partial indemnity costs from the date of their Rule 49 offer to settle.

The appellants appealed the imposition of two conditions on an order for the partition and sale of a commercial property, while the respondents cross-appealed seeking to reverse the order for sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of co-ownership but set aside the condition requiring the prior payment of $1 million, finding that conflicting evidence regarding payment required a trial.

The court held that the sale could not proceed until the issues of payment and alleged oppression were resolved at trial.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part.

The respondent, Anna Mauro, brought a motion for costs following an abandoned judicial review application and a previously dismissed stay motion.

The Divisional Court awarded the respondent $2,500 in costs for the stay motion, noting that while she was successful, the issues were not complicated and she had filed irrelevant material.

The court declined to award costs for the abandoned application, as the matter was moot and no steps were required by the respondent.

The appellant collection agency appealed a jury's assessment of $40,000 in general damages for slander.

The appellant's employee falsely represented himself as a lawyer to the respondent's employer, claiming a garnishment order had been issued against her.

The appellant argued the damages were patently excessive and should be reduced to $10,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the award was on the high side, it was not anomalous or wholly out of proportion, given the malicious nature of the call and the respondent's position handling cash at a bank.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal regarding the quantum of general damages and lost wages awarded for gender discrimination.

The Divisional Court determined that its jurisdiction was by way of judicial review and the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the Tribunal's decision on remedy was reasonable and dismissed the appeal, awarding $1,000 in costs to the respondent casino.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which awarded compensation to a worker injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving home after responding to an emergency call outside normal working hours.

The Appeals Tribunal applied the Board's Travelling Policy, finding the worker was in the course of his employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Appeals Tribunal's decision was reasonable, within its jurisdiction, and properly applied the mandatory Board policy.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order transferring three related actions to the Commercial List.

The plaintiffs argued that the actions, which alleged negligence against the defendants for their involvement in mining operations in Ecuador, were not commercial in nature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision to transfer the actions, as the pleadings relied on commercial statutes and raised issues of corporate governance.

The court also found that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance.

The applicant, Honda of Canada, Manufacturing, sought a stay of a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding pending the disposition of its application for judicial review.

Honda argued that the respondent failed to comply with disclosure rules, denying it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR MacDonald test.

The court found that Honda had not exhausted its remedies before the Tribunal, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the Tribunal proceeding to run its course.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal Review Board (HPARB) that prevented him from practicing medicine.

HPARB consented to the extension, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) opposed it.

The court applied the test for extending time, noting the applicant's arguable case on the merits and the broader principle that an extension should be granted if the justice of the case requires it.

Considering the applicant's prior self-represented status, lack of prejudice to the CPSO, and the severe impact on his livelihood, the court granted the extension and awarded costs to the applicant.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the case management judge, who directed that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification be heard prior to the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the case management judge's discretionary decision regarding the timing of procedural motions.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that awarded the tenants a rent abatement and compensation for alleged breaches of maintenance obligations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to address significant evidence from the landlord and by failing to provide adequate reasons for the quantum of the abatement and compensation.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Director's Delegate cancelling its Certificate of Revival under the Business Corporations Act.

The Delegate found the certificate invalid because the mandatory consent of the Minister of Finance was not attached to the Articles of Revival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Delegate's decision was reasonable and that the appellant was afforded procedural fairness.

Apotex Inc. sought judicial review of decisions by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs refusing to increase the reimbursable pricing of three generic antibiotic drugs.

The applicant argued that the historic pricing exemption should apply to allow price increases and challenged the Executive Officer's reliance on the single source pricing exemption to negotiate a price increase with a competitor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Executive Officer's interpretation of the legislation and regulations was reasonable and that her actions to ensure a continued supply of the drugs were lawful and in the public interest.

The mother appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of her two children without access.

She argued the trial judge erred by failing to find the apprehensions were unfounded, failing to adequately address a critique of the section 54 assessment, and failing to consider the maternal grandmother's potential support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error, and concluding that the trial judge's decision was child-focused and amply supported by the evidence.

The applicant professional regulatory body issued a summons to the respondent police chief for the production of a Crown brief related to criminal charges against a physician.

The respondent refused to comply, arguing that the screening process from D.P. v. Wagg applied.

On a stated case, the Divisional Court held that the public interest principles identified in Wagg apply to a summons issued by the regulatory body.

While the specific civil screening process is not strictly required, the lack of notice to the Attorney General and an opportunity to raise public interest concerns constitutes a lawful excuse for refusing to comply with the summons.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent law firm for unpaid legal fees.

The appellant argued it is unjust to grant summary judgment for solicitor's fees without an assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had repeatedly agreed to pay the accounts and his complaints about the quality of work were afterthoughts intended to delay the claim.

The motions judge correctly applied the test for summary judgment under Rule 76.07(9).

The applicant, Bot Construction Limited, sought judicial review of the Ministry of Transportation's decision to award a road construction contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued that the winning bid was non-compliant because it failed to declare imported steel, despite the project specifications requiring rolled steel beams that are unavailable in Canada.

The Divisional Court found that the Ministry's decision that the bid was compliant was unreasonable, as the bid could not meet the mandatory specifications using only Canadian steel.

The Court held that the Ministry breached its duty of fairness by privately accepting the winning bidder's proposal to substitute welded steel without notifying other bidders, and quashed the contract award.