Sidney N. Lederman

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $25,800 made against it following the dismissal of its application for document production under the Business Corporations Act.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred in principle and awarded an excessive amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no error in principle and no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary costs award.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring the appellant corporation to pay the respondents' interim legal fees and disbursements in an oppression remedy application pursuant to s. 249(4) of the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to order payment of unpaid and future accounts at face value without an approval process, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motions judge erred in ordering the reimbursement of accounts already paid by the respondents, as there was no evidence that failing to reimburse those specific amounts would preclude them from pursuing their claims.

The applicants sought judicial review of four decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, including procedural decisions denying an adjournment and change of venue, and a final decision declaring the applicants to be one employer bound to certain collective agreements.

The applicants argued the Board breached natural justice by refusing to adjourn the hearing from Toronto to Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's travel policy reasonable and noting the applicants failed to provide adequate reasons for their non-attendance when invited to do so.

The Court also upheld the Board's document production order.

The appellant, who sustained a severe traumatic brain injury, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying her request for pre-approved funding for in-patient rehabilitative services at an Alberta facility.

The facility was not licensed as a hospital and did not accept public funding.

The appellant argued the denial breached her rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the government to fund out-of-province medical treatments, and that the denial was based on the facility's licensing status, not the appellant's disability, thus not engaging section 15.

Following the dismissal of their judicial review application, the applicants argued they should not pay costs because the application was public interest litigation.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding the application was motivated by the practitioner applicants' commercial interests.

The court awarded costs of $30,000 to the Transitional Council and $15,000 to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, finding the Transitional Council's initial claim of up to $125,297.56 excessive.

The court ordered all applicants, including patient applicants, to be jointly and severally liable for the costs.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to repay illegally collected rent, arguing the leases were void under s. 50(3) of the Planning Act because the Residential Tenancies Act's automatic renewal provisions effectively created leases exceeding 21 years.

The tenants cross-appealed the Board's decision to limit their repayment to a one-year period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that statutory renewal does not trigger the Planning Act's subdivision control provisions, estoppel cannot override the RTA's prohibition on illegal rent, and the Board reasonably applied the one-year limitation period for collecting illegal rent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed a professor for just cause.

The underlying dismissal occurred in 2001, and the arbitral award was issued in 2002.

Due to various procedural steps, adjournments, and a late intervention by the dismissed professor raising jurisdictional arguments, the application did not proceed to a hearing until 2014.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for extreme delay, finding that relitigating a workplace dispute over a decade later would cause prejudice and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

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

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness during the consultation process and substantive errors in the Board's assessment of the union's investigation into a contracting-out grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of natural justice and holding that the Board reasonably concluded the union's actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant Union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance concerning the discharge of a disabled worker.

The Union argued it was denied natural justice because the arbitrator refused its counsel access to the employer's plant to observe jobs, and refused to admit Physical Demands Analysis documents as exhibits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's discretionary rulings were reasonable, caused no prejudice, and did not result in procedural unfairness.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their medical negligence action as statute-barred under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The action was commenced more than two years after the deceased's death.

The appellants argued the limitation period should be tolled due to fraudulent concealment by the respondent hospital and doctors regarding the deceased's INR results.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim and affidavit evidence did not plead facts sufficient to establish fraudulent concealment, but rather attempted to assert discoverability, which does not apply to s. 38(3).

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the plaintiff $6,855.68 for water damage to her condominium's hardwood floor caused by a leak from the defendants' unit above.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in interpreting condominium renovation rules and by relying on previously undisclosed evidence to order a full floor replacement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions and noting that the Small Claims Court has broad discretion to admit relevant evidence under section 27 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim regarding access to condominium records and ordering him to pay $2,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or breach of natural justice in the deputy judge's conduct.

However, the court held that the deputy judge erred in penalizing the applicant in costs for conduct outside the proceeding.

The application was allowed in part, and the costs award was reduced to $150 plus $500 in disbursements.

The applicants sought a declaration that Ontario Regulation 27/13 under the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006 was ultra vires and breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

They argued the regulation failed to create a 'doctor' class of practitioners and imposed discriminatory English or French language fluency requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was intra vires, there is no section 7 Charter right to practice a profession unfettered by regulation, and language alone is not a protected ground under section 15.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a one-year demotion in rank for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The appellant argued the penalty was unreasonable because it gave too much weight to a 10-year-old disciplinary record and failed to consider the economic impact on his pension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably considered the gap in the disciplinary record and that the pension issue was inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal without an evidentiary record.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which dismissed his complaints for delay.

The applicant had filed complaints regarding his termination and a subsequent settlement agreement 18 months and over two years after the events, respectively.

The Divisional Court found that both tribunals reasonably exercised their discretion in determining that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order and to vacate the stay of that order.

The tenant sought an adjournment, which the court denied, finding the tenant was aware of the motion and refused to cooperate.

The court found that the tenant's appeal raised only factual issues, including findings regarding unpaid rent, service of an N12 Form, and a legitimate agreement of purchase and sale.

Concluding that the appeal disclosed no error of law and was without merit, the court dismissed the appeal and vacated the stay.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21.01 to strike statements of claim in two actions commenced by the plaintiff.

The claims sought damages for emotional distress and relief removing a writ of seizure and sale, while repeating allegations relating to a partnership dispute previously litigated in Small Claims Court and upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court held that the plaintiff’s new actions raised the same issues or matters that could have been addressed in the earlier proceeding.

The claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the prior judgments and an abuse of process.

Both actions were dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff sought return of a commercial lease deposit after an agreement to lease premises for a spa/fitness centre failed because the proposed use, which included massage services, was not permitted under existing zoning.

The lease contained a condition requiring the tenant to obtain the necessary licence within four months.

The court held that the intended use included massage services and therefore required a holistic centre licence, which could not be obtained because zoning did not permit that use at the relevant time.

The landlord had warranted zoning compliance and was therefore in breach when the agreement was executed.

The court rejected arguments that the tenant misrepresented the intended use, waived the condition, or was estopped from relying on it, and ordered return of the deposit.

Following the dismissal of an application, the successful respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after being personally named in allegations of bad faith and oppression.

The court considered Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the seriousness of personal allegations against individual directors, and an earlier settlement proposal that could have resolved the dispute.

Although the applicant had an arguable issue relating to an allegedly undisclosed liability in a condominium status certificate, the court found the litigation strategy unnecessarily complex and disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Balancing these factors, the court declined substantial indemnity but awarded substantial costs reflecting the respondents’ success and the unnecessary allegations.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 payable within 30 days.

The moving parties sought costs following two motions attacking an amended statement of defence and counterclaim.

Success was divided on the motion to strike portions of the defence, resulting in no costs for that motion.

However, the moving parties were completely successful in having the counterclaim struck out, although with leave to amend.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), including the $4,000,000 damages claim, the respondents’ conduct in ignoring a judicial warning and amending pleadings late while maintaining offending allegations, and reputational implications for the lawyer defendants.

Costs of $5,000 all inclusive were awarded for the successful motion to strike the counterclaim.