Somers J.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refusing to consent to the abolition of the municipal police force unless the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) agreed to binding arbitration regarding the hiring of a specific officer.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's jurisdiction under section 40(3) of the Police Services Act is limited to ordering arbitration between a police board and a member regarding severance pay.

The Commission had no statutory authority to order the OPP to submit to arbitration regarding an officer's suitability for employment.

The condition was set aside and the Commission was directed to consent to the termination.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a Complaints Committee decision requiring him to attend for a Caution regarding an alleged improper breast examination.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding that the entire process fell below the required standard of procedural fairness.

The Committee and Board improperly made credibility findings based on uncorroborated hearsay, relied on an undisclosed expert opinion, and engaged in an unconscionable delay of 1,350 days.

The appellants appealed an order clarifying a previous judgment regarding interest payable to a dissenting shareholder under s. 185 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motion judge initially ordered interest 'in accordance with section 185' and later clarified that only postjudgment interest would be awarded from the date of judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge retained jurisdiction to specify both the rate and the time period for interest, and properly exercised his discretion.

The applicant, a former public service employee, sought judicial review of an order of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board that incorporated a settlement reached between his union and his employer regarding his termination.

The applicant argued the termination was a nullity due to lack of delegated authority.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant lacked standing to pursue the judicial review, as only the union, as the bargaining agent, had the authority to process and settle the grievance under the collective agreement.