Thomas R. Lederer

The appellant husband appealed an order reinstating his pleadings on the condition that he comply with a disclosure order and pay $35,000 in interim disbursements plus costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the interim disbursements condition because the motions judge failed to provide reasons, consider the appellant's ability to pay, or give notice that this issue would be decided.

The conditions regarding disclosure and costs were upheld.

The applicants, who were parties to an inquest into the death of an inmate, sought judicial review of a Coroner's decision refusing to order the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to produce certain video recordings.

In preparation for the judicial review, the applicants served a summons on the Commissioner of the CSC, requiring him to bring the videos to an examination so they could be viewed by the Divisional Court.

The CSC brought a motion to quash the summons.

The court granted the motion and quashed the summons, finding that the videos were clearly irrelevant to the issues on judicial review, which were limited to whether the Coroner acted unfairly or exceeded her jurisdiction.

The court noted that the record already contained sufficient descriptions of the videos' contents for the purpose of the judicial review.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision not to report an alleged contravention of the Election Finances Act by a third-party advertiser to the Attorney General.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the Chief Electoral Officer's handling of the complaint did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also found the challenge to the third party's 2007 registration to be moot.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenants appealed both the Board's decision to grant a review and its subsequent decision that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to their relationship.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash the appeal regarding the decision to grant a review, finding it was out of time and declining to extend the time limit.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the appeal on the merits, concluding it was premature to determine whether the appeal raised a question of law without full submissions.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision upholding an Assessment Officer's assessment of legal fees.

The Assessment Officer discounted the time of two senior lawyers because their dockets were not served in compliance with the Evidence Act and the lawyers did not attend the hearing, depriving the client of the opportunity to cross-examine them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Assessment Officer's decision or the reviewing judge's consideration.

The appellant objected to the involvement of the respondent's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest, and sought to have counsel removed.

The Divisional Court declined to make the order, noting that the objection was raised late, the lower court had already found no conflict, the quantum in issue was very small, and requiring the respondent to retain new counsel would cause undue delay and expense.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the contracting out of a 'locating function' previously performed by an Inspector.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the locating function constituted 'work' under the collective agreement.

The court held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's remedy was reasonableness.

The arbitrator's decision to award damages as an incentive for compliance, calculated based on the value of the work, was deemed reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant sought to challenge an order requiring her to pay security for costs, failing which her appeal was stayed.

She failed to bring a motion to set aside or vary the order within the required time.

The Divisional Court refused to grant an extension of time, finding no apparent merit to the proposed motion or the underlying appeal, and noting substantial prejudice to the respondent due to the appellant's abusive litigation conduct.

The motion was dismissed and the stay of the appeal continued.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of six records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant argued the records were exempt under s. 13(1) as they contained advice or recommendations of a public servant.

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision to release Records I to V, finding it reasonable that they did not contain a recommended course of action.

However, the court overturned the decision regarding Record VI, finding that the proposed redactions clearly contained advice and recommendations and were therefore exempt from disclosure.

The moving party, Dr. Sazant, sought an extension of time to bring a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to challenge an order of a single judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the delay prejudiced the respondents.

The court emphasized that resort to s. 21(5) should not become routine and that the justice of the case did not require granting the extension.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board under the Independent Health Facilities Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by asking itself the wrong question, limiting its consideration to whether the Director had the authority to revoke the appellant's licence rather than whether the revocation was a reasonable exercise of discretion.

The court rescinded the Board's decision and remitted the matter back for a re-hearing, noting that the Board's process is a hearing where it may substitute its own opinion for that of the Director.

Two organizations, Conservation Ontario and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP), brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review concerning the interpretation of the workplace injury reporting requirements under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The court granted intervenor status to Conservation Ontario, finding it could provide a broader context regarding the operation of recreational facilities without expanding the record.

The court dismissed the OACP's motion, as it sought to introduce new issues and factual assertions that were not before the original decision-maker.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission that reinstated the original results of a horse race, overturning a prior decision by the track Stewards regarding interference.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness due to lack of notice, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and challenged the tribunal's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that actual notice was established, there was no evidence of bias, and the tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff sued for damages after a crane it purchased was destroyed in a fire.

The plaintiff mistakenly named the Canadian distributor instead of the Austrian manufacturer.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff successfully moved before a Master to correct the misnomer and substitute the manufacturer as a defendant.

The manufacturer and the Canadian distributor appealed the Master's order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonably open to the Master to conclude that the 'litigating finger' pointed at the manufacturer and that there was no prejudice in allowing the correction.

The appellant sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders that adjourned her motion to discontinue a civil action sine die pending a jurisdictional determination by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

The Divisional Court heard the motion for leave and found that the appellant failed to satisfy the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

There was no conflicting decision on a legal principle, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the procedural order, which did not raise an issue of importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the revocation of his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant demonstrated willful blindness regarding stolen vehicles found on his lot and noted several Highway Traffic Act convictions indicating a lack of honesty and integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's credibility findings or its reliance on the appellant's past conduct.

The City of St. Catharines sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the release of a report considered during an in camera municipal council meeting.

The report concerned a property owner's request to acquire city land or obtain an encroachment agreement.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness for the Commissioner's interpretation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but correctness for the Municipal Act.

Although the Adjudicator erred in finding the meeting was improperly closed under the Municipal Act, the ultimate decision to release most of the report was reasonable because the report did not reveal the actual substance of the in camera deliberations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant insurance company appealed a decision dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent homeowners.

The respondents had sued for damages following unsatisfactory home repairs after a flood.

The appellant failed to file a statement of defence despite multiple extensions, and delayed several months before moving to set aside the default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that while the motions judge erred in concluding there was no arguable defence on the merits, she correctly found the appellant failed to explain the default or move promptly.

Weighing all factors, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal, finding the justice of the case required denying relief due to the appellant's unexplained delay.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario following a guilty plea for operating in a net trust deficit position and failing to maintain proper records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was statute-barred as it was filed out of time under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court also addressed the merits, concluding the Committee's decision was reasonable, the brief written reasons were sufficient, and the requirement to file audited financial statements for three years was within the Committee's jurisdiction.

The applicants sought to extend a stay of a 12-month license suspension imposed by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission pending a judicial review.

The respondent argued the judicial review was premature as the applicants had not exhausted their right of appeal to the Commission.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the lack of reasons for the suspension, irreparable harm to the applicant's racing operation, and the balance of convenience favouring the applicant.

The motion was granted and the stay was extended to allow the judicial review to be heard alongside a related application.