Sidney N. Lederman

The appellant appealed a decision declaring her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative terminated and granting a writ of possession.

The co-operative had withdrawn her rent-geared-to-income subsidy because she failed to disclose her receipt of Ontario Works benefits since 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly concluded the co-operative's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The applicant teacher sought judicial review of a decision by the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers to refer a complaint of professional misconduct to the Discipline Committee.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness due to insufficient particulars regarding allegations of inappropriate interactions with male students.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Investigation Committee is a screening body owed a limited duty of fairness, and that the applicant had received reasonable information about the allegations as required by the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding him liable under an indemnity agreement for a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant signed the agreement and that the landlord made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages.

The court held that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that section 54 of the Labour Relations Act applies to all collective agreements in Ontario.

The arbitrator had not yet decided the ultimate question of whether mandatory retirement prior to amendments to the Human Rights Code was unlawful.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, emphasizing that courts should not entertain applications prior to the completion of proceedings to avoid fragmented proceedings and unnecessary delay.

The arbitrator must rule on all issues before judicial review is appropriate.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision refusing to extend the time to review an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay.

The applicant's solicitor had inadvertently missed the 30-day deadline, initiating the request six months late.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's discretionary decision reasonable given the statutory purpose of prompt resolution and the presumed prejudice of a six-month delay.

The applicants, physicians under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, brought applications for judicial review challenging the scope of investigators' powers under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

They argued that investigators could not compel them to submit to interviews or allow observation of their surgical practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that the statutory power to 'inquire into and examine the practice' includes the power to observe surgeries, and the incorporation of the Public Inquiries Act grants investigators the power to compel interviews.

The court also dismissed as premature the challenge to the Registrar's decision that there were reasonable and probable grounds to initiate the investigations.

The appellant developer appealed two Ontario Municipal Board decisions that upheld a development charge of $287,904.22 paid to the respondent municipality.

The appellant argued the municipality's Commissioner erred by relying on standard design flow guidelines rather than actual water usage and conservation measures to determine water demand under the applicable by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the by-law's language was clear and the Commissioner's exercise of discretion was reasonable.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence of actual water usage was also dismissed as it did not relate to a question of law.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision regarding an oral contract, arguing that the trial judge made findings of credibility and fact not supported by the evidence.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge did not misread or misinterpret the evidence, and that her findings regarding the settling of accounts were supported by the record.

The court concluded there was no palpable or overriding error and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $2,000 to the respondents.

The appellant licensee appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which found a breach of s. 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 for permitting drunkenness and suspended its licence for seven days.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by reserving its decision on a motion for non-suit and requiring the licensee to call evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was not required to entertain non-suit motions allegation by allegation without a complete election.

The court also held that a prima facie case of permitting drunkenness had been established based on the evidence.

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Ltd. appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that required any dividend paid by the utility to its parent company be approved by a majority of its independent directors.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board lacked both express and implied jurisdiction under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 to impose restrictions on the corporate process for declaring dividends.

The condition was found to be an unwarranted intrusion into corporate governance and contrary to established corporate law principles.

The Canadian Medical Protective Association and the Ontario Medical Association brought applications for judicial review of an Adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of a 2004 Memorandum of Understanding under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicants argued the OMA was not a 'trade union' under the Act and that the agreement contained confidential third-party information exempt from disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, upholding the Adjudicator's broad interpretation of 'trade union' and finding her conclusion that the information was not 'supplied in confidence' to be reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an order for unpaid wages.

The applicant claimed he was owed wages paid 'in kind' by a company owned by his mother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness.

The court held that the OLRB's findings—that the applicant was not an employee during the relevant period and had not established a wage rate—were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant physician was found guilty of professional misconduct for improperly conducting a breast examination.

The Discipline Committee imposed a permanent condition on his certificate of registration restricting his practice to male patients.

The physician appealed the penalty.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that section 51(2)3 of the Health Professions Procedural Code permits conditions for a 'specified or indefinite' period, but 'indefinite' does not mean 'permanent'.

The Committee therefore lacked jurisdiction to impose a permanent restriction.

The defendant/appellant, The Economical Insurance Group, sought costs totalling $38,285.86 following its successful appeal regarding a motion for security for costs.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should be in the cause or not payable forthwith.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount excessive and awarded the defendant $5,000 plus disbursements for the motion to the master and the appeal to the motions judge, payable in 60 days.

The court also awarded $5,000 inclusive of disbursements for the motion for leave and the appeal to the Divisional Court, payable in any event of the cause, recognizing the state of the relevant jurisprudence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal granting several respondents leave to appeal the Ministry of the Environment's issuance of Certificates of Approval for the use of alternative fuels, including tires, at a cement plant.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision to grant leave was reasonable.

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the test for leave under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights as requiring a standard of proof lower than a balance of probabilities.

Furthermore, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the Ministry Directors should have considered the Statement of Environmental Values, common law rights, and environmental consistency, and that the project could result in significant harm to the environment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment in a construction lien action.

The action against the appellant was based on a personal guarantee of a corporate defendant's obligations.

The Divisional Court upheld the master's decision, finding that service by registered mail complied with the Construction Lien Act.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to meet the three-pronged test to set aside a default judgment, specifically failing to provide a plausible explanation for the default and delaying eight months before bringing the motion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on a physician's appeal from a 2006 penalty decision.

The proposed fresh evidence was a 2007 decision finding the physician guilty of professional misconduct for breaching an undertaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that a subsequent conviction is not relevant to assessing the reasonableness of a prior penalty decision.

The Court noted that allowing such evidence would defeat the finality of the trial process and that the College could have adduced the underlying facts of the breach at the original penalty hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Adjudicator's decision upholding the Ministry of Natural Resources' disclosure of certain records to a requester.

The applicant argued the records were exempt from disclosure under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained confidential commercial information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's conclusion that the information was negotiated rather than 'supplied' in confidence was reasonable.

The tenants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering them to pay arrears of rent.

Under section 86 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, a landlord may only apply for arrears if the tenant is in possession of the rental unit at the time of the application.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to make express findings regarding the tenants' occupancy of the units when the applications were brought, despite evidence that they had vacated earlier.

The appeals were allowed, the Tribunal's decisions were set aside, and the matters were remitted for rehearing.

The defendant appealed a decision of a motions judge that set aside a case management master's order requiring the non-resident plaintiffs to post security for costs.

The Divisional Court resolved conflicting jurisprudence regarding the standard of review for appeals from a master, holding that the standard is the same as for appeals from a judge: correctness for errors of law, and palpable and overriding error for findings of fact.

The court found that the motions judge erred by treating the appeal as a hearing de novo and substituting his own view of the evidence regarding the plaintiffs' impecuniosity.

The master's finding that impecuniosity had not been established was entitled to deference, and her order for security for costs was restored.