Thomas R. Lederer

The appellant, a lawyer appealing a professional discipline decision, requested an adjournment of his appeal hearing one week before the scheduled date in order to retain counsel.

The court noted the request was almost devoid of merit given the appellant's prior delays and failure to perfect the appeal on time.

However, recognizing this was the appellant's last chance to restore his professional life and finding no risk to the public, the court granted a final indulgence.

The appeal was adjourned peremptorily, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs of $1,500 to the respondent.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a cost award made by the motions judge following the certification of their class proceeding.

The plaintiffs argued the motions judge ignored established principles, such as costs following the event and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and improperly applied the principle of access to justice to the defendants.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion, considering all relevant factors and principles, and that there was no conflicting decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of a Master dismissing her wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The appellant argued the Master erred by measuring the delay from September 2006 and ignoring intervening factors, such as a previous order excusing delay and an amended statement of claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master properly considered the entire history of the litigation, correctly applied the law regarding inordinate and inexcusable delay, and properly found the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that set aside a judgment obtained after the defendants failed to attend trial.

The plaintiffs argued there was a conflicting decision and good reason to doubt the correctness of the order under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 52.01(3) to set aside the judgment on terms, and there was no conflicting decision or reason to doubt the order's correctness.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to vary an order refusing leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Board had dismissed an appeal regarding minor variances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge applied the correct test and did not decline jurisdiction.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but declined to order substantial indemnity costs despite the moving party's unfounded allegations of false evidence.

The applicant, a police officer, brought an application for judicial review to prohibit a retired superintendent from continuing as an adjudicator in a disciplinary proceeding against him.

The adjudicator had previously presided over two other disciplinary hearings involving the applicant and had expressed opinions regarding his character.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that an informed person would conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the adjudicator's pre-existing knowledge of the applicant's disciplinary history.

The applicants sought relief under the Arbitration Act and judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to challenge an arbitrator's award.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, as such applications must be brought before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court also held that judicial review is a public law remedy unavailable to challenge a private consensual arbitrator's award.

The application for judicial review was quashed, and the remaining relief was referred to the Superior Court.