Sidney N. Lederman

A former long-term warehouse employee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal equivalent to 22 months’ reasonable notice.

The employer argued that summary judgment was inappropriate due to mitigation issues and that the reasonable notice period should be significantly shorter.

The court held that the mitigation issue could be determined on the record and that the employer failed to demonstrate the employee had failed to mitigate.

Applying the Bardal factors, including the employee’s age, long service, and compensation level, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at 22 months.

The court ordered payment of damages using a trust and accounting mechanism for the balance of the notice period to account for potential mitigation income.

The appellant appealed an order passing the accounts of the respondent, who acted as Attorney for Property and Estate Trustee for their parents.

The trial judge had awarded the respondent compensation of $129,861.05 and ordered the appellant to personally pay full indemnity costs of $192,000.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in awarding a care and management fee for the Estate Trustee period and in calculating a deduction from the appellant's share of the residue.

The Court also granted leave to appeal the costs order, substituting a blended order requiring the appellant to pay partial indemnity costs of $115,200, with the balance of the respondent's legal costs payable from the estate.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to exercise a five percent road reservation on his property pursuant to the Public Lands Act.

The applicant argued that the Minister miscalculated the land available, acted for an improper purpose, and denied him procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister had broad discretion under the Act, the decision to ensure public access was reasonable, and the applicant was afforded adequate consultation and reasons.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his claim to rescind $75,000 in child support arrears enforced by the Family Responsibility Office.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the claim exceeded the $50,000 statutory limit under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal, noting the appellant's failure to move expeditiously, his history of using proceedings to delay payment, and the lack of legal merit in the appeal.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant law firm appealed an order dismissing its motion to set aside a requisition obtained by the respondent client under s. 3 of the Solicitors Act for the assessment of legal accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the accounts were interim and the requisition was properly made within one month of the delivery of the final account.

The court also upheld the motions judge's exercise of inherent jurisdiction to permit the assessment and his refusal to order security for costs.

The applicant, a young African-Canadian man, filed a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling after being stopped by police.

The Commission and the police settled the complaint, agreeing to a limited data collection project, but the applicant sought broader systemic remedies, including data collection for pedestrian stops.

The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request without a full hearing, deferring to the settlement and finding it lacked jurisdiction to order remedies for pedestrian stops.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, holding that while the summary process was procedurally fair, the Tribunal's conclusions on jurisdiction and its complete deference to the Commission's settlement were unreasonable.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding for unpaid overtime on behalf of approximately 7,800 employees.

The defendants argued the certification decision conflicted with appellate authority regarding systemic practices and misclassification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the plaintiff had properly framed the case around a systemic policy rather than individual misclassification.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its motion to certify a global class action against an Ontario accounting firm for negligence and negligent misrepresentation in an audit report.

The Divisional Court (majority) upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that joinder was the preferable procedure and that Ontario lacked a real and substantial connection to the claims of the foreign investors.

The appeal and a motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and certified the class action.

The moving party, a former client of the responding parties, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion for a refund of solicitor's invoices.

The motion judge had found that the moving party fraudulently added a 50% discount term to the billing agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, and no issues of general importance.

Following a successful appeal that set aside an order requiring the appellant to have a litigation guardian, the court determined the costs of the appeal.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $30,000, arguing that full recovery is the norm in family law proceedings.

The respondent argued for no costs due to the novelty of the issue, or alternatively $7,000.

The Divisional Court held that the normal rule of partial indemnity costs applies to appellate proceedings in this court, rejecting the family law full-recovery norm for appeals.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to perfect her appeal from a summary judgment and to adduce fresh evidence.

The respondent consented to the time extension, which was granted.

The court dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the proposed telephone transcripts were irrelevant to the issues on appeal and the discovery transcript could have been obtained prior to the initial hearing with reasonable diligence.

The moving party employer brought a motion to dismiss the responding party employee's application for judicial review for excessive delay.

The employee sought to review decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario made five years prior.

The court found the employee's explanation for the delay—that he pursued other avenues like the United Nations and Supreme Court of Canada, and did not know about judicial review—unacceptable.

Given the five-year delay, the statutory mandate for expeditious resolution of human rights disputes, and the prejudice to the employer, the court granted the motion and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Following the dismissal of both the appeal and cross-appeal regarding whether glass doors and track lighting were chattels or fixtures, the court determined the issue of costs.

Given that the main issue was similar in both the appeal and cross-appeal and the trial judge's findings were upheld, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The appellant, a union member, appealed a summary judgment decision that dismissed his action challenging two internal union disciplinary convictions.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the court's jurisdiction over internal union affairs is limited to ensuring compliance with the union constitution, good faith, and natural justice.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding lack of evidence and bias, finding them without merit.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The minor appellant brought an application seeking child support from her biological father.

The motion judge held that the appellant was required to have a litigation guardian under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the Family Law Rules did not adequately cover the situation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Family Law Rules do adequately cover the situation, specifically exempting a child in a child support case from the definition of a 'special party'.

The appeal was allowed, and the order requiring a litigation guardian was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim procedural ruling that issued a summons compelling the production of a Wagg brief in a grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that it is premature to judicially review interlocutory decisions of administrative decision-makers.

The court found that the arbitrator has the authority to rule on her own jurisdiction and procedural matters, and that fragmenting the arbitration process would frustrate legislative goals.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application to evict the respondent tenant for late payment of rent.

The tenant had paid rent late eleven times over a twelve-month period, but had a ten-year history of paying on time prior to that.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's interpretation of 'persistently' and its exercise of discretion to refuse eviction without imposing conditions were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a Master's finding that the appellant owner repudiated a construction contract.

The Master found that the contract evolved over time due to multiple plan changes, requiring the owner to act reasonably and renegotiate construction milestones.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Master's conclusions were rooted in the evidence and the appeal judge correctly applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent landlord $10,747.65 for rent arrears, repairs, misappropriation of glass doors, and clean-up costs following the end of a commercial lease.

The landlord cross-appealed the finding that track lighting constituted chattels or trade fixtures.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a province-wide collective agreement.

The Arbitrator was appointed under the Labour Relations Act to resolve a dispute in the residential construction sector.

The applicant argued the Arbitrator's jurisdiction was statutorily limited to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the legislation expressly restricted the Arbitrator's authority to the GTA and that he could not use a regulation to expand his jurisdiction and interfere with the parties' right to strike or lockout outside the GTA.

The non-GTA portion of the award was quashed.