Somers

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award on a policy grievance, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by making factual findings related to individual grievances that were not before him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator properly used uncontested background facts to provide context for the broad policy award.

The court held that determining facts relevant to the award was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, and his findings were not patently unreasonable.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his solicitor negligence claim against his former lawyer.

The appellant alleged that the lawyer's negligence in advising him and representing him at a bail hearing resulted in his 30-day detention.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no causal connection between the lawyer's actions and the detention.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action on behalf of indirect purchasers (homeowners and end users) alleging that the defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy regarding iron oxide pigment used in construction materials.

The application judge certified the action.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court held that the plaintiffs faced insurmountable problems of proof regarding whether the alleged overcharge was passed on to them through the chain of distribution, making the action unmanageable and inappropriate for aggregate damages assessment.

Canada Post applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating 29 employees dismissed for theft.

The arbitrator ruled that evidence of the thefts was inadmissible because Canada Post failed to provide the employees with a report of their infractions within ten days, as required by the collective agreement.

Canada Post argued this interpretation was patently unreasonable because it prevented covert investigations of widespread criminal activity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was not patently unreasonable as it was consistent with 20 years of arbitral jurisprudence and the collective agreement's stare decisis clause.

The applicants challenged a City of Toronto by-law requiring individual taxi-cab owners to attend mechanical examinations of their vehicles in person, while allowing corporate and partnership owners to send designated custodians.

The applicants argued the by-law lacked enabling authority, was enacted in bad faith, was vague, violated procedural fairness, and infringed section 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court rejected the administrative law arguments but found the personal attendance requirement had a discriminatory effect on elderly and disabled owners who could not reasonably attend in person.

The court held the provision was not saved by section 1 of the Charter, as the owner's presence was not necessary for an effective examination, and struck down the impugned section of the by-law.