Thomas R. Lederer

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Judicial Council's disposition of his complaint against a Small Claims Court judge.

The complaint took 584 days to resolve, which the applicant argued was an unreasonable delay.

The Divisional Court found that while the applicant had standing to bring the application, the OJC's procedure and disposition were reasonable and mandated by statute.

The application was dismissed, but costs were awarded to the unsuccessful applicant due to the OJC's delay and misleading correspondence regarding the availability of judicial review.

The applicant sought to enforce a New York judgment ordering the respondent to deliver a painting purchased by the applicant.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, denial of natural justice, and a novel 'comity' defence, while also requesting a stay pending an appeal in New York.

The court rejected all of the respondent's defences, finding the New York court had jurisdiction and its process was fair.

The court ordered that the New York judgment could be enforced in Ontario, but granted a short, conditional stay of enforcement pending the determination of the respondent's ongoing appeal in New York.

An Ontario resident plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident in New York commenced an action in Ontario against the New York driver and his own Ontario insurer under uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage provisions.

The moving party sought dismissal or a stay for lack of jurisdiction.

Applying the real and substantial connection test articulated in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the plaintiff’s insurance contract was not a contract connected with the dispute and any potential liability under the policy was speculative and contingent.

The plaintiff could not rely on a secondary claim against his own insurer to establish jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.

Alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, New York was the more appropriate forum.

The appellant condominium owner sought access to election proxies and ballots after an unsuccessful bid for the board of directors.

The Small Claims Court initially ordered production of the records, but later varied the order to require redaction of identifying information to protect owner privacy.

The appellant appealed the variation order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the appealed order was procedural and did not involve a monetary amount, and further held that the Small Claims Court judge had jurisdiction to clarify the order.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding waste disposal fees charged by the City of Toronto.

The appellant failed to compact all its waste as required by the municipal bylaw, and the City charged the compacted rate for the uncompacted waste.

The appellant argued the General Manager acted outside his authority and performed a legislative function.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the General Manager was properly carrying out an administrative function necessary for the proper administration of the waste management program.

The court amended the trial costs award on consent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award regarding the contracting out of hospital sterilization services, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive formal notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had actual notice of the hearing, its timing, and the issues in dispute, but chose not to attend.

The court also noted that the contracting out had been completed and there was no longer any tangible dispute between the parties, making judicial review inappropriate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which proceeded in his absence after denying his request for an adjournment.

The appellant also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence, claiming he had not received a letter outlining the shortcomings of his medical documentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the appellant had received the letter and his failure to provide the evidence earlier was due to a lack of diligence.

The court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's refusal to grant a further adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion and not a denial of natural justice, as the appellant had failed to comply with the reasonable conditions attached to a previous adjournment.

The applicants brought two applications for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

At the hearing, the applicants requested an adjournment based on irrelevant proceedings and offensive submissions.

The court refused the adjournment and directed the applicants to proceed.

When the applicants refused to proceed, the court dismissed the applications and suggested that the respondents consider bringing a vexatious litigant application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant was dismissed from his employment after being arrested and charged with a criminal offence.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, arguing that being charged with an offence is a 'socio-political limitation' constituting a disability.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the statutory definition of disability is restricted to physical and mental conditions.

The Court also declined to hear a new constitutional challenge to the Code under s. 15(1) of the Charter, as it was not raised before the Tribunal and the interests of justice did not warrant an exception.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Land Titles to freeze the land records for a property after the applicant registered a self-to-self transfer despite having no prior interest in the land.

The applicant argued the Director lacked the authority under the Registry Act to freeze the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director had the jurisdiction under sections 23, 97(f), and 97.1(c) of the Registry Act to investigate and take preventative action against suspicious registrations.

The court also held that the Director's decision to freeze the records was reasonable and noted it would deny relief under its inherent jurisdiction as the applicant was attempting to create an interest in land where none existed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to substitute five named individuals for 'John Doe' defendants.

The action involved allegations that the defendants improperly accessed and used the plaintiff's confidential bond trading information.

The court applied the two-part test for misnomer, focusing on whether the 'litigating finger' pointed at the proposed defendants such that they would have known they were the intended parties.

The court granted the motion for four of the individuals, finding they would have recognized they were implicated by the allegations of accessing or destroying information, but denied it for one individual whose role was not clearly implicated by the pleadings.

Following a successful application by a condominium corporation to enforce compliance with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation’s declaration regarding exclusive use rights to sell fresh meat and poultry, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The corporation sought recovery of its legal costs pursuant to s. 134(5) of the Act, which allows a condominium corporation to recover both court-awarded costs and additional actual costs incurred in obtaining a compliance order.

The respondents argued that they should not bear responsibility for the costs or that liability should fall on the other respondent.

The court held that the policy behind s. 134(5) shifts the financial burden of obtaining compliance orders to the offending unit owner or occupier.

The full amount of the claimed legal costs was found reasonable and awarded, with the owner liable for the total amount but entitled to recover half from the tenant.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning a commercial tenancy dispute and a counterclaim for damages arising from the landlord’s termination of the tenancy and demolition of the building, the successful tenant sought costs exceeding $185,000.

The landlord argued it should instead receive costs or that no costs be awarded, citing the tenant’s failure to pay rent as ordered, allegations of perjury, and late disclosure of evidence.

The court held that the general principle that costs follow the event applied, as none of the landlord’s objections justified departing from that rule.

However, the court found the tenant’s litigation tactics—particularly its refusal to pay rent despite opportunities to resolve the dispute and regain the premises—warranted a reduction in the costs claimed.

Costs were therefore reduced by approximately one‑third.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in contempt and requiring him to reinstate a life insurance policy and designate his wife as beneficiary.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge did not err in making an order despite there being no current support obligation, she did err in law by ordering the appellant to reinstate a life insurance policy, as s. 34(1) of the Family Law Act only provides jurisdiction to require a spouse who already has a policy to designate a beneficiary.

The appeal was allowed in part, the penalty for contempt was varied to compel the appellant's participation in the proceedings, and a procedural timetable was ordered.

The plaintiff, acting as receiver, obtained a judgment against a trust company for breach of trust.

The plaintiff then brought an action against the trust company's insurer to satisfy the judgment and moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff had standing to sue the insurer based on an assignment of the right to sue, rather than under section 132(1) of the Insurance Act.

While the court determined that the policy initially provided coverage for the breach of trust, it ultimately held that coverage was excluded under policy provisions relating to dishonest acts and the gaining of an illegal advantage.

The court also found that the insurer's duty of good faith to the insured had been assigned to the plaintiff, leaving the issue of whether that duty was breached for trial.

The defendant bank brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims alleging it negligently released $50,000 held in a bank account that had been ordered by a court as security for child support obligations.

After the death of the account holder, the Canada Revenue Agency issued a Requirement to Pay for tax debts and the bank remitted the funds.

The plaintiffs argued the funds should have been paid to satisfy child support arrears, and that the bank had been aware of efforts by the estate trustee and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to arrange payment of those arrears.

The court held that significant factual issues remained, including whether the arrears should have been paid before the Requirement to Pay and whether the bank’s conduct created liability through negligence or estoppel.

Applying the summary judgment principles articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded that the evidence could not be fully appreciated without a trial.

The appellant appealed a preliminary decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which held that it lacked jurisdiction to declare a provision of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Appeal and Review Boards Act constitutionally invalid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 6(3) of the Act explicitly removes the Board's jurisdiction to inquire into or decide the constitutional validity of an Act or regulation.

However, the Court clarified that the Board retains jurisdiction to consider whether the application of the statutory regime or the respondent's policies infringe the appellant's Charter rights.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a motion judge's order fixing the amount required to discharge a lien registered against the respondent's unit for legal costs incurred in obtaining a compliance order.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred in law by failing to explain how she calculated the 'additional actual costs' under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act.

However, because the appellant deliberately chose not to tender evidence of its actual legal costs on the motion, the court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal and limited the appellant's recovery to the original $10,000 costs award, ordering the lien discharged.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging the vires of Ontario Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act, arguing that its provisions regarding out-of-country medical treatment contravened the Canada Health Act.

The applicant abandoned any constitutional or Charter challenges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, following the precedent in Collett v. Ontario (Attorney General).

The court held that the consequence of failing to satisfy the Canada Health Act criteria is a matter of intergovernmental consultation and within the discretion of the Governor in Council, rendering the issue non-justiciable and the challenge premature.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its claim for damages in negligence or breach of contract resulting from commercial carpet cleaning.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge's refusal to draw inferences of negligence from circumstantial evidence was open to him and did not constitute a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.