Terrance A. Platana

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought costs totaling approximately $98,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant conceded the respondents' entitlement to costs but argued the quantum was excessive, suggesting $20,000 was appropriate.

The Divisional Court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the appeal was not particularly complex despite the appellant's conduct lengthening the proceedings.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than an exact measure of actual costs, the court found the respondents' claimed hours and amounts to be unreasonable.

The court fixed total costs at $25,000, apportioned among the three respondent groups.

The appellant appealed a civil jury verdict dismissing his claims for assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of nervous shock against police, ambulance attendants, and store security, and awarding damages on the respondents' counterclaims.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing adjournments, admitting prejudicial expert testimony, and excluding medical reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's discretionary rulings on adjournments and evidence, and concluding there was a sufficient basis for the jury's punitive damages award.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a union grievance regarding teacher lunch breaks.

The school board had directed teachers to receive students in their classrooms five minutes before the start of afternoon classes, which the union argued violated the collective agreement's provision for a lunch period free of assigned tasks.

The arbitrator found that the school board had voluntarily fettered its discretion under O. Reg. 298 by agreeing to the collective agreement provision.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the regulation and collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a declaration that a non-profit apartment complex for recovering substance abusers was exempt from municipal taxation as a 'house of refuge' under s. 3(1)-11 of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding that the facility's primary purpose was to provide a protected environment and sanctuary from the peril of recidivism into addiction, thus qualifying for the exemption.

The self-represented tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction due to hoarding and creating a fire hazard.

Despite numerous procedural defects and the tenant's failure to perfect the appeal, the court allowed the appeal to be heard on its merits.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant raised no question of law and that the Tribunal's factual findings were not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the departure of a 'key man' to the applicant company constituted a sale of a business under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found there was evidence to support the Board's factual findings and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent unions.

The appellant insured was receiving disability benefits following an automobile accident.

The respondent insurer suspended benefits after the appellant refused to attend an addiction treatment program recommended by an addiction expert who examined him under the insurance contract.

The appellant brought an application for a declaration that benefits could not be terminated, and the insurer successfully moved for an order for another medical examination by the same expert under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insured's appeal, holding that a medical examination conducted pursuant to an insurance contract prior to litigation does not pre-empt a defendant's prima facie right to a first medical examination under the rules of civil procedure.

The appellant appealed an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal upholding the Director's decision to require audited financial statements as a condition for renewing children's residence licences.

The appellant argued the Director lacked statutory authority to use this information to set per diem rates.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of the statute and reasonable in concluding the information was not being sought for an unauthorized purpose.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which declined to use its reconsideration powers under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to consolidate 11 bargaining units into two.

The Divisional Court applied the functional and pragmatic approach, determining the standard of review to be patent unreasonableness due to the presence of a strong privative clause and the Board's specialized expertise.

The Court found that the Board's decision to leave the restructuring of bargaining units to the parties once a collective agreement is in place was rational and consistent with long-standing jurisprudence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order granting temporary care and custody of their premature child to the children's aid society.

The order was made to facilitate an emergency blood transfusion which the parents had refused on religious grounds.

The parents argued they were denied procedural fairness and their Charter rights were violated due to short notice and lack of counsel at the emergency teleconference hearing.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the parents received a fair hearing attenuated to the urgent medical circumstances, and that the issues were highly fact-specific rather than of general public importance.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral decision regarding a policy grievance on contracting out.

The arbitrator found that a worker provided by an agency was not an employee of the applicant, but nevertheless concluded by analogy that the worker could not work for the applicant for more than two weeks under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and effectively amended the collective agreement by creating a third class of worker.

The court held the decision was patently unreasonable as it conflicted with the express provision allowing contracting out.

The father unsuccessfully appealed a trial decision in a child protection proceeding.

The mother, who supported the children's aid society on the appeal, sought costs of $14,000 on a substantial indemnity scale against the father.

The court held that under subrule 24(2) of the Family Law Rules, the presumption of costs does not apply in child protection cases, even as between parents.

As the father's appeal raised genuine issues and he did not behave unreasonably, the court made no order as to costs.