Sidney N. Lederman

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that dismissed his motion for a stay of a hearing of a Notice of Proposal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory right of appeal under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act applies only to final decisions, not interlocutory orders.

Furthermore, the court found the appeal to be premature, as the tribunal should be permitted to complete its work before appellate procedures are launched.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for an assault that occurred during a recreational hockey game.

The trial judge found that the appellant deliberately punched the respondent in the face after the referee had stopped play, causing dental injuries.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent did not assume the risk of a deliberate, unprovoked attack and that the liability waiver did not bar recovery.

The court also upheld the award of special damages for future dental work, finding the respondent's dentist was qualified to provide opinion evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant licensee appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario finding it breached s. 45(1) of O. Reg 719/90 by permitting drunkenness on its premises.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board committed an error of law by failing to make a specific finding that the licensee 'permitted' the intoxicated patron to be on the premises, which is an essential element of the infraction.

The finding of a violation was set aside.

The appellant husband appealed a finding of bad faith made by the motion judge in a family law disclosure motion, but did not appeal the underlying costs order itself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal lies only from an order, not from a finding alone.

On a judicial review application, certain respondents moved to strike an exhibit to an affidavit submitted by the Ministry of the Environment.

The exhibit, which detailed a delegation of authority under the Environmental Bill of Rights, was tendered to show that the Minister's obligations had not been delegated.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and struck the exhibit, holding that it was not part of the record before the tribunal and that the rare circumstances permitting the supplementation of the record on judicial review, such as showing jurisdictional error, did not apply.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld the cancellation of his disability benefits.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by finding he and another individual met the definition of 'spouse' under O. Reg. 222/98, asserting that a mutual written declaration was required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal made no error of law and was entitled to consider surrounding circumstances to determine if a declaration had been made.

The complainants, family members of deceased involuntary psychiatric patients, alleged that s. 10 of the Coroners Act discriminated against them on the basis of mental disability by making inquests discretionary for involuntary patients but mandatory for inmates in penal institutions.

The Human Rights Tribunal found discrimination and ordered inquests and damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while a coroner's inquest is a 'service' under s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, the differential treatment under the Coroners Act does not amount to discrimination.

The distinction is based on the different vulnerable circumstances and levels of public oversight in penal institutions versus psychiatric facilities, not on disability.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

Following an application for judicial review, the respondent unions sought costs.

The applicant opposed the costs request, citing serious financial hardship.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event, noting that the unions were required to participate fully due to the applicant's allegations of misconduct.

The court awarded costs of $3,500 to the Teamsters and $5,000 to UA Local 787.

Following an unsuccessful appeal regarding a police complaint, the successful respondent officer sought costs of $18,201.50.

The appellant argued that he pursued the appeal in good faith, had limited financial means, and that a large costs award would deter citizens from advancing legitimate complaints against the police.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event but fixed the quantum at $4,000 all inclusive, considering the lack of complexity, the short hearing, the appellant's personal circumstances, and reasonable expectations.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury and was granted Future Economic Loss benefits.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board calculated his pre-injury earnings without including his employer's contributions to his union's health and pension plans.

The applicant appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which upheld the decision.

The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Tribunal's decision patently unreasonable because it failed to consider the legislative history and the government's explanation for the applicable statutory provisions.

The plaintiff was successful on an appeal regarding the enforcement of an employment agreement containing a non-exclusive attornment clause.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for both the appeal and the underlying motion.

The defendant argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge due to the inter-relationship of the issues.

The court rejected the defendant's argument, holding that costs should follow the event, and awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Ministry of the Attorney General sought judicial review of two orders by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of total dollar figures for legal services rendered to other ministries.

The Ministry argued the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege under s. 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the IPC correctly applied the rebuttable presumption of privilege test from Maranda v. Richer and reasonably concluded the presumption was rebutted because disclosing the aggregate amounts would not reveal privileged communications.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent police officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged the officer breached his Charter rights by administering a breath test without proper caution after the appellant was evicted from a park.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the Hearing Officer to conclude the breath test was voluntary and the officer's actions in ensuring the safety of the campers and the public did not constitute discreditable conduct.

Following an appeal of a Rule 76 summary trial judgment that dealt with modest amounts and took less than two hours, the court issued an endorsement on costs.

Given the divided success on the appeal, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

The employment contract contained a non-exclusive attornment clause to the State of Washington.

The Master stayed the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding the clause shifted the onus to the plaintiff to prove Ontario was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the Master erred in law; the onus does not shift when the validity of the clause is challenged based on public policy and unequal bargaining power.

The appeal was allowed and the stay dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had withdrawn his grievance from arbitration due to his antagonistic and uncooperative conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was entirely reasonable and that there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer her disability discrimination and harassment complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal.

The applicant argued the Commission's investigation was incompetent for failing to interview her physicians and relying on potentially biased employee statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the investigation was thorough and not clearly deficient.

The Court held that the Commission's conclusion—that the applicant was accommodated and terminated for progressive discipline rather than discrimination—was supported by ample evidence and was not patently unreasonable.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' motion to adduce fresh evidence and their appeal, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

Although the respondent's partial indemnity costs amounted to $12,875, it sought a reduced award of $4,000 to avoid inhibiting self-represented parties from pursuing appeal rights.

The court found the issues were not complex and the requested amount was modest, fixing costs at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant sought leave to appeal two orders in a family law proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal an order staying the appellant's child support application pending compliance with a financial disclosure order.

However, the Court granted leave and allowed the appeal of a case conference judge's order that struck the affidavit of the parties' teenage child.

The Court found the case conference judge erred by striking the affidavit on his own initiative without hearing submissions, contrary to the Family Law Rules, and without providing adequate reasons for exercising parens patriae jurisdiction.

The affidavit was restored to the record.

The applicant Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitration award granting a police officer indemnification for legal costs incurred defending a criminal charge.

The officer had been acquitted of criminal charges but pled guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for breaching a directive during the same incident.

The arbitrator found the officer was attempting to perform his duties in good faith when the events giving rise to the criminal charge occurred, despite the breach of the directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable.