Susan G. Himel

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that approved Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments permitting a mixed residential and commercial development on adjacent lands.

The moving party argued the Board erred in law by failing to apply the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, exceeded its jurisdiction by extending the re-designation to intervening properties, and breached natural justice by refusing to admit late noise evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any point of law, and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellants, owners of a condominium project, appealed an order requiring them to hold five units as security pending the determination of an action brought by the respondent purchaser.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge had effectively granted a Mareva injunction without applying the proper legal test.

There was insufficient evidence of a strong prima facie case or a real risk of asset dissipation.

The paragraphs of the order requiring the units to be held as security were deleted.

The respondent in the appeal brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence arising from an examination for discovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the test for adducing fresh evidence.

The court found that the proposed evidence regarding authority to bind a corporation was not determinative of the issue on appeal, which concerned an order to post security, and that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to the initial proceeding.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to continue, subject to conditions, the restaurant licences of four establishments with histories of public health violations.

The City argued the decisions were patently unreasonable and that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by misunderstanding its jurisdiction, failing to provide adequate reasons, and interfering in the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were supported by the evidence and that the hearings were conducted fairly without any breach of natural justice.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which had ruled that a law firm was not in a conflict of interest and could continue representing the respondents.

The law firm had previously represented the applicant local union before it was placed in trusteeship.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

Applying the MacDonald Estate test, the Court found the law firm possessed relevant confidential information and there was a risk of prejudice to the former client.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was quashed, and the law firm was ordered to cease acting against its former client.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that voided a four-day suspension imposed on a grievor.

The Board had found that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to advise the grievor of his right to union representation during a police interview at which a supervisor was present.

The Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

Finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement and its application of the automatic voiding remedy were not patently unreasonable, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision making her three children Crown wards, with the youngest child made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother argued the trial judge failed to explicitly consider the children's native heritage, erred in finding the youngest child adoptable without expert evidence, and erred in denying sibling access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge implicitly considered the native heritage provisions, expert evidence of adoptability was unnecessary for a healthy three-year-old, and the decision to prioritize adoption over sibling access was open to the trial judge.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review of an Ontario Human Rights Commission decision, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondents sought costs, while the applicant argued that a costs award would impose a significant burden.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $3,500 for the Commission and $3,500 for the Hospital and doctor, payable by the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with her discrimination complaint against her former employer.

The Commission had exercised its discretion under section 34 of the Human Rights Code to dismiss the complaint because it was filed more than six months after the events giving rise to it, and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the Commission's exercise of discretion was not patently unreasonable.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff sued for breach of a commercial lease after the defendants sold the property without honouring the plaintiff's right of first refusal.

The defendants argued the action was barred by a one-year contractual limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that whether the discoverability rule applies to a contractual limitation period is a genuine issue for trial, as is the factual question of when the plaintiff ought reasonably to have discovered the breach.

The City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding a doctor $81,850 for injurious affection caused by subway construction near his leased offices.

The doctor cross-appealed the quantum of damages, arguing the Board erred in reducing damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in principle in the Board's assessment of reasonableness or damages.