Sidney N. Lederman

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the care of his child, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on a doctor's findings about emotional harm and placed undue weight on his economic circumstances.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence of the appellant's improved employment and housing but dismissed the appeal.

The court found the trial judge properly assessed the risk of emotional harm based on the appellant's history of inappropriate disciplinary measures and dysfunctional parenting.

The court also held that the trial judge appropriately considered the appellant's financial ability to provide a secure home as part of the mandated best interests analysis under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appellant car dealership appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of contract and awarding $7,785 in damages plus over $14,000 in costs for selling a used van with a tampered odometer.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of liability but found the trial judge erred in calculating damages by comparing the financing costs of the defective van with a newer, more expensive replacement van.

The Court recalculated the damages to $4,996.75 based on the base purchase price minus the trade-in credit, and reduced the trial costs award to $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) order finding they violated securities law by operating an RRSP/loan scheme without registration or a prospectus.

The appellants argued the OSC erred in refusing an adjournment, sought to introduce fresh evidence, and challenged the OSC's findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the refusal of the adjournment was justified, the fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission, and the OSC's findings of unregistered trading and public interest violations were reasonable.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which found she committed professional misconduct by financially exploiting a vulnerable psychiatric patient.

The appellant had failed to attend the disciplinary hearing, claiming late disclosure of documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that by choosing not to attend the hearing, the appellant waived her right to raise procedural fairness and evidentiary objections.

The court also upheld the penalty, which included revocation of her certificate of registration, a $15,000 fine, and costs, as reasonable given the serious abuse of the nurse-patient relationship.

The self-represented applicant, a former dentist whose license was permanently revoked following disciplinary hearings, applied for judicial review of an earlier interim suspension and sought various other orders against the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the request to review the interim suspension was moot because the applicant's license had already been permanently revoked and all appeals exhausted.

The court also dismissed the applicant's requests for damages, return of patient files, and injunctions, characterizing the claims as vexatious and an abuse of process.

Full indemnity costs of $31,761 were awarded to the College.

The appellants, owners of a condominium project, appealed an order requiring them to hold five units as security pending the determination of an action brought by the respondent purchaser.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge had effectively granted a Mareva injunction without applying the proper legal test.

There was insufficient evidence of a strong prima facie case or a real risk of asset dissipation.

The paragraphs of the order requiring the units to be held as security were deleted.

The respondent in the appeal brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence arising from an examination for discovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the test for adducing fresh evidence.

The court found that the proposed evidence regarding authority to bind a corporation was not determinative of the issue on appeal, which concerned an order to post security, and that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to the initial proceeding.

The applicant, a non-profit organization serving the Vietnamese community, sought judicial review of the City's decision refusing permission to fly the flag of the former South Vietnam on a courtesy flagpole at City Hall.

The City's policy restricted national flags to those of nations recognized by the federal Department of Foreign Affairs.

The Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the decision but dismissed the application.

The court found no violation of freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as the flagpole was not a public forum and the policy did not aim to suppress expression.

The court also rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations and unreasonableness.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal found her chronic pain did not amount to a substantial impairment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by assessing the appellant's condition on her 'good days' rather than her recurrent 'bad days', and failed to make findings on the frequency and unpredictability of her bad days.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending his appeal.

The Committee had found him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, imposing a 30-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding a serious issue regarding the proportionality of the penalty, irreparable harm due to the ongoing suspension and professional damage, and that the balance of convenience favoured a conditional stay.

The stay was granted on the same terms, conditions, and limitations that the Discipline Committee had ordered for his return to practice.

The cross-appellant elector appealed a judgment under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that the respondent mayor owned additional properties near a proposed highway extension.

The Divisional Court held that the normal test for fresh evidence is modified by s. 11(2) of the Act, which allows a new trial before the same judge to take additional evidence if it might have affected the initial disposition.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the trial judge to reconsider the judgment in light of the fresh evidence.

The cross-appellant, an elector, appealed a judgment that found the respondent mayor breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act but excused the breach as an error in judgment.

The cross-appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal showing the mayor had interests in other properties affected by the highway extension vote.

The Divisional Court modified the traditional test for fresh evidence due to the unique powers under s. 11(2) of the Act, admitted the evidence, and remitted the matter to the trial judge for reconsideration.

The applicants brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside interlocutory orders made by a single judge in a pending judicial review application challenging the cancellation of the spring bear hunt.

The panel allowed the motion in part, permitting the applicants to examine the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources under Rule 39.03 on the narrow issue of whether the Minister exercised independent discretion or was dictated to by the Premier.

The panel upheld the single judge's orders restricting the applicants to four expert witnesses and directing that the respondents' motion to strike portions of affidavits be heard by a single judge prior to the main application.