Sidney N. Lederman

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by two coroners refusing to issue a summons to a government official to testify about the composition of the jury roll in the Thunder Bay district, specifically regarding the representation of First Nations individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that coroners have no statutory authority under the Coroners Act to inquire into or remedy the process used by the sheriff to compile the jury roll under the Juries Act.

The court found no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice in the coroners' refusals.

The appellant, a licensed electricity distributor, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board denying the recovery of approximately $15 million in deferred costs accumulated in a regulatory asset account.

The appellant argued that a 2002 interim rate order implicitly approved the deferral plan and that subsequent legislation freezing rates made the order final, entitling them to recovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the interim order did not approve the deferral plan and that the Board was justified in requiring a prudency review before allowing the recovery of costs from ratepayers.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Provincial Schools Admission Committee denying her admission to a provincial school for the deaf.

The applicant, who has a developmental brain malformation and severe language delays, communicates primarily using American Sign Language.

The Committee denied admission based on audiological reports showing normal peripheral hearing, concluding she did not have an auditory handicap.

The Divisional Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the Committee breached procedural fairness by excluding relevant documents and hearing from a Ministry witness without the applicant's knowledge.

The Court also found the Committee failed to properly consider all medical evidence regarding the applicant's central auditory processing disorder.

The decision was set aside and remitted to a newly constituted committee.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Director's Delegate had overturned a preliminary arbitration order that found the respondent insured's application for mediation was time-barred.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate was reasonable in concluding that the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule did not begin to run until the insurer provided notice of refusal to pay following a negative Designated Assessment Centre report, rather than from the initial notice of stoppage of benefits.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application to evict a tenant for the landlord's own use.

Although the Board found the application was made in good faith, it refused the eviction under s. 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, finding that eviction would be more unfair to the vulnerable tenant than denying the landlord's application.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and held that the Board did not err in principle by weighing the overall circumstances and unfairness to both parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a property owner, appealed a summary judgment order requiring it to pay the respondent contractor $1,199,122.50 for the unpaid balance of a construction contract.

The motions judge had found that a prior settlement agreement constituted an unequivocal admission of liability, precluding the appellant from raising a defence of equitable set-off for construction deficiencies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the settlement agreement expressly permitted the appellant to file a statement of defence without prejudice in the event of default.

As the elements of equitable set-off were present, there was a genuine issue for trial, and the summary judgment was set aside.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting her cosmetic surgery practice pending a disciplinary hearing.

The order was issued after investigations into patient complaints, including one patient death following a liposuction procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the College's decision was reasonable, supported by ample evidence of risk to patient safety, and did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party, a physician under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion to stay a stated case application initiated by the College pending the outcome of his separate application challenging the constitutionality of the College's investigative summons power.

The stated case application sought to compel the Chief of Police to comply with a summons for a Crown brief related to stayed criminal charges against the physician.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the College to proceed with its investigation in the public interest.

However, the court granted the physician leave to intervene as an added party in the stated case application on consent.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $15,000 for pain and suffering.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained earlier and lacked a necessary affidavit linking the abuse to loss of income.

The appeal on the merits was also dismissed, as the court found no error of law in the Board's exercise of its broad discretion to award compensation.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant applying to the Board to vary the award based on new evidence.

The appellant mother appealed a motions judge's order that required the respondent father to pay reduced child support of $250 per month for their adult son attending university, and dismissed her claim for retroactive child support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The reduced support amount appropriately accounted for the son's bursary, part-time work, and the father's payment of his car insurance, while the conflicting evidence did not establish an entitlement to retroactive support.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of an interim decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding card-based certification.

The employer had provided lists of employees for two prospective bargaining units with 24 overlapping names.

The unions agreed between themselves on how to allocate the overlapping workers and argued the employer was bound by this agreement.

The Board ruled the employer was not a party to the agreement and ordered the employer to provide an unqualified list.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with its jurisprudence.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) moved for leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring it to pay for a mother's psychiatric assessment in a custody and access dispute.

The motions judge had ordered the OCL to pay because the mother lacked funds and the judge required an assessment, despite the OCL's position that it would proceed without one if the parties could not pay.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of ordering a non-party government office to pay for a private litigant's assessment, and noting the issue is of general public importance to the administration of justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that denied him temporary disability benefits and found no permanent impairment from a workplace accident.

The applicant argued WSIAT erred by relying on a general medical discussion paper, failing to consult a medical advisor, and improperly weighing the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding WSIAT's decision was reasonable, supported by the applicant's own medical records showing pre-existing back pain, and that WSIAT, as an expert tribunal, was not required to consult a medical advisor.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying it as the employer of union members and dismissing its request for reconsideration.

The applicant had failed to respond to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit, later claiming it was not the employer and had ignored the notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decisions were subject to a reasonableness standard of review and that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion in refusing to reconsider the certification despite the applicant's claim that it was not the true employer.

The husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $12,000 in lump sum spousal support and to return property to his former wife following a very brief marriage.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred by failing to relate the support amount to the wife's actual needs and by ordering the return of property that was not claimed in the pleadings.

The appeal was allowed, the lump sum support was reduced to $4,800, and the order for the return of property was deleted.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his appointment as a bailiff for allegedly participating in unlawful entries.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the first incident was unreasonable because the evidence established the client had a right to occupy the premises.

The Court further held it was administratively unfair to rely on a second, much older incident as an independent basis for revocation due to delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside.

The self-represented applicant requested a third adjournment of her judicial review application and motion for leave to appeal due to health issues.

The court granted the adjournment, setting a peremptory hearing date, but ordered the applicant to pay $500 in costs thrown away to the respondent within 30 days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, alleging he signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Penalty under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no basis to interfere with the Committee's credibility findings that there was no duress.

The Court also held that the finding of a Code of Ethics violation and the penalty imposed were reasonable, given the applicant's creation of a false document and misrepresentation regarding a competing offer.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Appeals Management Tribunal of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which had dismissed his motion to extend the time to appeal a finding of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that appeals from the Appeals Management Tribunal must first go to the Appeal Panel of the Law Society, and only subsequent appeals from the Appeal Panel lie to the Divisional Court under section 49.38 of the Law Society Act.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its grievance regarding post-65 retirement benefits under a collective agreement following municipal amalgamation.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably rejected extrinsic evidence and misinterpreted a grand-parenting clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusions on both the extrinsic evidence and the interpretation of the eligibility requirements were reasonable.