Thomas R. Lederer

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a policy grievance regarding probationary faculty workload.

The union argued the board's reasons were inadequate and incomprehensible.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the board failed to engage with the union's arguments or explain its conclusion regarding the collective agreement's exception for policy grievances.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitration award was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted board.

The defendant insurer sought leave to appeal a motion judge's refusal to grant summary judgment in an action arising from a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by an unidentified driver.

The motion judge had concluded that credibility issues prevented summary judgment and that a mini-trial was inappropriate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle, no conflicting case law, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The personal defendant sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to strike the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim against him.

The plaintiff alleged the personal defendant, as the owner and directing mind of the corporate defendants, was a common employer.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision regarding the personal defendant's liability, as allowing the claim to proceed without specific allegations of independent action could subject all directors to such lawsuits simply based on their position of control.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a province-wide collective agreement.

The Arbitrator was appointed under the Labour Relations Act to resolve a dispute in the residential construction sector.

The applicant argued the Arbitrator's jurisdiction was statutorily limited to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the legislation expressly restricted the Arbitrator's authority to the GTA and that he could not use a regulation to expand his jurisdiction and interfere with the parties' right to strike or lockout outside the GTA.

The non-GTA portion of the award was quashed.

The moving party tenant sought to set aside an order quashing her appeal, arguing she was not properly served with the motion materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the underlying appeal was moot because the tenant had already been evicted and the court lacked jurisdiction to award damages for wrongful eviction on appeal.

The court also declined to set aside the previous costs order, noting the tenant had actual knowledge of the hearing.

No costs were awarded for the present motion.

The applicant, a 76-year-old family physician, sought judicial review of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Quality Assurance Committee requiring him to practice under clinical supervision.

The order followed peer assessments that identified critical deficiencies in his practice posing an immediate risk to patient safety.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he did not receive a copy of the final review before the Committee's initial letter, and that the Committee failed to consider his responses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness when the process was viewed as a whole, and concluding that the Committee had properly considered the applicant's submissions.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of seniority for On Call Relief Employees who become route-holding Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers.

The arbitrator found that, based on the collective agreement, seniority does not accrue during the period an employee works as an On Call Relief Employee.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that it gave meaning to all relevant provisions of the collective agreement without modifying them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, with one judge dissenting.

The Ottawa Police Services applied for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reinstated a police officer previously dismissed for unsatisfactory work performance.

The Commission had found that the police service failed to strictly follow its established procedures under O. Reg. 268/10 before initiating the complaint.

The Divisional Court (majority) held that the Commission's strict interpretation of the regulation was unreasonable, finding that the police service's extensive ad hoc efforts to assist the officer substantially complied with the statutory requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Commission's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted.

This was a costs endorsement following a successful motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $155,295.40, while the defendants argued costs should be in the cause because the interlocutory order did not determine the ultimate merits.

The court held that the defendants' conduct was not so egregious as to justify elevated costs and emphasized that the enforceability of the non-competition clause and the existence of damage remained to be tried.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the cause in the amount of $75,000.

In this costs endorsement following an employment dispute, the plaintiffs argued they had beaten the defendant's collective settlement offer, while the defendant sought costs consequences under rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the offer should not determine costs, emphasizing that the defendant had lost the fundamental issues at trial and had pursued an uncompromising litigation position inconsistent with the settlement-promoting purpose of the rule.

The court declined to award any costs to the defendant and instead awarded the plaintiffs $42,000, reduced to reflect their limited success on the length of the notice period.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that lifted a stay of proceedings but refused to dismiss the plaintiff's 17-year-old action for delay.

The underlying action involved a claim for long-term disability benefits.

The Divisional Court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, noting that the primary responsibility to move an action forward rests with the plaintiff and that the defendant suffered actual prejudice due to the passage of time and the evolving nature of the medical condition.

Leave to appeal the refusal to dismiss the action for delay was granted.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to stay the respondents' application in favour of arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to request arbitration before submitting their first statement on the substance of the dispute, as required by Article 8(1) of the Model Law.

The court also noted that referring the matter to arbitration would result in a multiplicity of proceedings, as only one issue involving a dormant appellant would be subject to arbitration, while the remaining issues involving non-parties would require a court application.

The defendants moved for leave to appeal an order refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs (two sisters) sued the defendant (a third sister) and others regarding the transfer of a family farm.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs had no legal interest in the property as mere beneficiaries under their living mother's will.

The court noted the plaintiffs each received $250,000 from the defendant sister for their interests in the farm, suggesting they did have an interest or were improperly denied one.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The applicants, suppression firefighters, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their age discrimination applications.

The applicants challenged the mandatory retirement age of 60, arguing the employer failed to accommodate them by not engaging in individualized testing for cardiac risk.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably relied on established precedent that mandatory retirement for firefighters is a bona fide occupational requirement, and that the applicants failed to provide the necessary individualized medical evidence of extremely low cardiac risk to trigger the narrow exception for accommodation.

The moving party (Third Party) brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed its appeal from a Master's interlocutory orders regarding the procedure for a trade secrets protection motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the Master's orders were interlocutory and properly appealable only to a judge of the Superior Court.

The court also dismissed the moving party's requests to vary the order to permit examination of opposing counsel and to delete portions of the judge's endorsement, characterizing the moving party's conduct as an abuse of process.

The responding party's cross-motion was granted in part, requiring the moving party to obtain leave before bringing further procedural motions.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the moving party.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's responsibility to maintain an elevator under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board was entitled to construe its home statute to consider the landlord's actions in the circumstances.

Finding no error of law, the court dismissed the appeal.

In a real estate deposit dispute, the sellers treated the buyers' letter about difficulties selling their own home as terminating the agreement of purchase and sale.

The court held that repudiation requires a clear, absolute, and unequivocal renunciation of contractual obligations.

The buyers' statements that they were evaluating options and trying to minimize issues did not amount to repudiation.

Judgment was granted in favour of the defendants, and the deposit with accrued interest was ordered returned to them.

The applicant contractor sought leave to appeal a costs order made by the Regional Senior Judge following a construction lien trial and subsequent motion.

The applicant claimed over $158,000 in costs on a $60,000 claim, which the Regional Senior Judge reduced to $45,000 on the basis of proportionality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle and agreeing that the costs claimed were grossly excessive and disproportionate to the amounts in issue.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Both parties agreed the appeal should be allowed because the hearing panel improperly determined the appellant was not a victim of crime and failed to conduct the requisite analysis under s. 17(1) of the Act.

The appellant requested the court substitute its opinion for the Board's regarding compensation, citing distrust of the Board.

The Divisional Court held it is not equipped to make the necessary factual findings and remitted the matter to the Board for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission for a positive drug test involving furosemide.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission erred by treating furosemide as a Class V drug without explanation, as it is not classified as such in the Uniform Classification Guidelines.

The court held the penalty decision was unreasonable, granted the application, and remitted the matter to the Commission for re-determination.