Taylor

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision which found that the respondent police service did not discriminate against her when officers apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was taken to the hospital after officers spent an hour trying to convince her to attend voluntarily.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no defect in the Tribunal's proceedings or its conclusion that the officers had cause to apprehend the applicant.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a letter from the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada denying his request to write the pharmacist qualification examination for a fifth time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the letter was not a reviewable decision but merely a statement of the existing rule limiting attempts.

The court also rejected the applicant's arguments that the Act creating the Board and the rule limiting examination attempts were ultra vires, noting that the Board does not regulate the profession but merely administers an examination that provincial licensing bodies may use.

The grandparents brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed their appeal for delay.

The underlying child protection case involved a constitutional challenge to the definition of 'Indian or native person' under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Divisional Court panel found that the motion judge erred by not considering the merits of the constitutional challenge, which had been properly included in the trial judge's reconsideration.

The panel concluded the appeal had a real chance of success and set aside the order dismissing the appeal, allowing the grandparents to perfect their appeal.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order dismissing his motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision involved questions of mixed fact and law and was entitled to deference.

The court held that the motion judge appropriately considered the factual disputes and the necessity of a trial for other issues, such as mental distress and defamation, and found no palpable and overriding error.