Somers

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of two orders by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of the total amounts paid by the Ministry for court-ordered legal representation of certain individuals in criminal proceedings.

The Ministry argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege and the protection of personal privacy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner was correct in determining that the aggregate fee amounts were neutral information not protected by solicitor-client privilege, and that the Commissioner's decision that the disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy was reasonable.

The applicant restaurant association challenged the jurisdictional and constitutional validity of a City of Toronto by-law requiring restaurant operators to publicly post the results of food premises inspections (the 'DineSafe' Disclosure Program).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the city had the jurisdiction to pass the by-law under the Municipal Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The court also rejected the applicant's Charter challenges, holding that a corporation cannot invoke section 7, and that the mandatory posting of inspection notices did not infringe freedom of expression under section 2(b) because it did not force the owners to adopt the city's message or prevent them from disavowing it.

The court further held that even if section 2(b) were infringed, the by-law would be saved under section 1.

The applicant employer association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its application for final offer selection to amend a collective agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the application and was required to choose one of the two final offers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the pragmatic and functional approach, the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was subject to a patently unreasonable standard of review.

The court held it was not patently unreasonable for the arbitrator to conclude that the existence of a competitive disadvantage had to be verified before an offer could be selected, and that the arbitrator's factual findings were supported by evidence.

The applicant, Universal Settlements International, Inc., sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision upholding an investigation order.

The applicant, which sold viatical settlement purchase programs, argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was neither a reporting issuer nor a registrant under the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Commission has broad statutory powers to investigate matters it considers expedient for the due administration of securities law and the protection of the public interest, regardless of the applicant's registration status.

The applicant appealed a decision denying a property tax exemption for its children's camp.

The application judge had found the camp was primarily recreational and did not qualify as a place for the 'care of children' under s. 3(1)11 of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the camp's primary purpose was the care of children in a special educational setting, integrating special needs children with others.

The court held that the application judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to recognize the charitable and educational nature of the care provided.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting the respondent's application for the sale of five commercial properties under the Partition Act.

The parties were co-tenants, and the respondent, holding a minority interest, refused to consent to the appellants' management and leveraging plans after the appellants acquired their majority interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a co-tenant has a prima facie right to compel a sale under the Davis test, and that the respondent's conduct was not malicious, oppressive, or vexatious, but rather a predictable response to a business relationship breakdown.

The appellant physician was convicted of sexually abusing a patient by the Discipline Committee.

At the hearing, the appellant sought production of the treating psychologist's notes, which were illegible.

The Panel dismissed the motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction and that the first stage of the O'Connor test was not met, but provided no further reasons.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Panel breached the duty of fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which was both incorrect on jurisdiction and inexplicable on the O'Connor test.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered.

The applicant, Earthroots Coalition, sought judicial review of the Minister of Natural Resources' decision to permit the improvement and use of a logging road crossing the Bob Lake Conservation Reserve.

The applicant argued the road use violated the Conservation Reserve Regulation, which prohibits commercial forest harvest and industrial uses in the reserve.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court dismissed the application.

The court held that the regulation must be interpreted purposively within the broader legislative framework of the Public Lands Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, making the Minister's decision to balance conservation with forest management objectives reasonable.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement.

The defendant had agreed to pay $500,000 to settle allegations of sexual assault during a doctor-patient and employer-employee relationship, but stopped payments after $56,000, alleging the agreement was obtained through fraud and economic duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that genuine issues of fact and credibility regarding the nature of the relationship and the validity of the duress defence required a trial.

The appellant psychiatrist appealed a finding of incompetence and the subsequent penalty imposed by the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The committee found the appellant incompetent due to severe deficiencies in record keeping and poor judgment in treating complex psychiatric patients.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of incompetence, noting the committee's specialized expertise and the cumulative effect of the appellant's conduct.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding penalty, finding the 30-month suspension and strict practice restrictions excessive.

The Court substituted a less restrictive penalty involving video monitoring, a full-time secretary, and practice supervision.

The appellant physician appealed a disciplinary decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

In this partial dissent, Greer J. disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold the Complaints Committee's finding of incompetence.

Greer J. concluded that while the physician may have been negligent or shown a serious lack of judgment regarding record-keeping and boundary issues, his conduct did not meet the statutory definition of incompetence under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, as there was no evidence he was unfit to continue practicing.

The applicant employees sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing their claim for statutory holiday pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The employees commenced a lawful strike on July 4, the first scheduled workday after the Canada Day holiday.

The Board found they were disqualified from holiday pay because they failed to work their scheduled day of work following the public holiday.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's purposive interpretation of the Act was supported by a tenable explanation.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the respondent union's General Secretary to proceed with a complaints investigation.

The court assumed without deciding that the General Secretary's investigation was subject to judicial review.

However, the court dismissed the application because mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and the applicant had not exhausted other adequate remedies, specifically seeking reconsideration from the General Secretary.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide particulars of prejudice or evidence of bad faith, and the court noted it should be cautious in interfering with trade union affairs.

The appellant appealed a summary trial judgment ordering the return of a $20,000 condominium deposit to the respondent.

The trial judge had found the respondent mentally incompetent to enter the agreement of purchase and sale based solely on a medical report from her psychiatrist.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding that the medical report was improperly admitted into evidence because it was not supported by an affidavit nor filed in compliance with section 52 of the Evidence Act, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor.

The appellant executor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $75,000 in dependant's support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found the respondent was a 'spouse' who had continuously cohabited with the deceased for at least three years prior to his death, and that her evidence was sufficiently corroborated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding cohabitation or the quantum of support awarded.

The appellant, a massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexual abuse and inappropriate touching of a client.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and in its factual findings regarding his admissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee properly appreciated the legal significance of discrepancies in the evidence and that its factual findings were reasonable.

The penalty of a nine-month suspension and costs was also upheld, as there was no error in principle.

The applicant applied for judicial review to quash an adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of records relating to the costs of bringing witnesses from India to Canada for a murder trial.

The adjudicator had ordered the records disclosed with the witnesses' names and signatures expunged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicator reasonably interpreted and applied the exemptions under the applicable legislation and correctly found that the exemption under s. 19 did not apply.

The appellants, Axor Construction Canada Inc. and London Guarantee Insurance Company, appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $455,462.85 in damages under the Construction Lien Act.

The dispute arose from a construction subcontract where the appellant stopped payment on a certified cheque due to a backcharge related to a Fair Wage Policy.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's actions, including stopping payment and demanding an unjustified bond, constituted a fundamental breach of contract that excused the respondent from continued performance.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the repainting and repair of a water tower by the respondent employer was maintenance work, not work in the construction industry.

The union argued the Board used the wrong definition and denied natural justice by refusing to hear evidence about a different project.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the excluded evidence was irrelevant, meaning there was no denial of natural justice.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenants a rent abatement for the discontinuance of storage lockers.

On appeal, the landlord introduced fresh evidence showing the lockers had been replaced, making the discontinuance temporary.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, terminating the ongoing rent abatement effective May 1, 2003, pursuant to s. 30(5) of Ontario Regulation 194/98, but awarded costs to the tenants because the appeal arose from the landlord's failure to adduce evidence initially and its subsequent change of position.