Thomas R. Lederer

The applicant sought judicial review of the rejection of his application for the Ontario Immigration Nominee Program under the Investor Component Stream.

The applicant proposed a $3 million investment in a private secondary school.

The application was rejected on the basis that it failed to demonstrate significant economic benefit to Ontario, failed to meet job creation commitments, and failed to establish the necessity of the proposed nominee positions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the respondent's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court also held that the discretionary, policy-oriented nature of the program attracted a low standard of procedural fairness, which was met through the issuance of a procedural fairness letter.

The applicant sought judicial review of the AGCO's decision refusing a retail sales authorization for a cannabis store.

The AGCO rejected the application because the proposed location was within 150 metres of a school, measured using a straight-line method.

The applicant argued the distance should be measured by the shortest publicly available walking route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the AGCO's straight-line measurement method was a reasonable interpretation of the Cannabis Licence Act and its regulations, and that the method was sufficiently transparent to the public.

The appellant, Halton Hills Hydro Inc., appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board refusing a discretionary rate adjustment for operation, maintenance, and administration costs of a new transformer station between five-year rate-setting intervals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the Board's conclusion that the requested costs were not sufficiently material to justify an exception to its general policy.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the respondent employer's decision to close its Windsor plant.

The union argued that the plant closure violated a 'sole sourcing' promise made by the employer in exchange for wage concessions.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it relied on an improper inference drawn from rejected proposed contract language, failing to consider the overall context of the negotiations.

The application was granted, the arbitrator's decision was quashed, and the grievance was remitted back to the arbitrator for a fresh determination.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, costs were fixed at $10,000 payable to the successful respondent.

The moving party withdrew its motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Nishikawa.

The Divisional Court awarded costs of the withdrawn motion to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to the respondent.

The moving party, Simon Miller, brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Engelking J. dated August 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $3,361.75.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision to substitute a 30-day suspension for the dismissal of a flight attendant who had unlatched refreshment trolleys during a flight.

The employer argued the arbitrator's reasoning was illogical and failed to address safety concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, justified, and transparent under the Vavilov standard, as the arbitrator reasonably concluded the misconduct was not as grave as the employer believed and lacked malice.

The applicant sought judicial review of two orders issued by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) imposing sanctions and financial penalties for alleged non-compliance with Market Rules.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the orders pending judicial review, while the IESO brought a motion to quash the judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash regarding the IESO's jurisdiction to create the dispute resolution regime, finding it was not plain and obvious the application would fail.

However, the court granted the motion to quash regarding the allegation of structural bias, as the applicant had not exhausted the alternative remedies available.

The court granted the stay of the orders, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the applicant.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against the defendant obstetricians, alleging that their negligence caused the infant plaintiff to suffer a severe brain injury.

Following a jury trial, the jury found that the defendants breached the standard of care and that the breaches caused the injuries.

However, the trial judge refused to enter judgment on the verdict, finding that the jury's answers explaining how the breaches caused the injuries were insufficient and non-responsive.

The trial judge ordered a new trial.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction.

The defendants cross-appealed, arguing the action should have been dismissed for lack of evidence on causation.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal.

The majority held that the trial judge correctly concluded the jury's answers on causation were insufficient, as they merely repeated the breaches of the standard of care and failed to explain the causal link, leaving the central issue in doubt.

The applicant, a dentist residing in British Columbia, sought judicial review of the respondent board's refusal to consider her compassionate appeals regarding failed clinical judgement assessments.

The appeals were filed years after the assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two primary grounds.

First, the court found it lacked jurisdiction as there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario, noting the matter should have been brought in British Columbia.

Second, the court held that the board lacked the authority to extend the one-week limitation period for compassionate appeals under the by-laws in effect at the time the assessments were completed.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an application to enforce two Letters of Request from a Florida court, directed at David Smith.

The underlying dispute involved allegations of a hate mail campaign orchestrated by Isaac Perlmutter against Harold Peerenboom, with David Smith allegedly involved.

All parties (Isaac and Laura Perlmutter, Harold Peerenboom, and David Smith) sought costs for the Canadian application.

The court found it impossible to meaningfully decide the issue of costs without knowing the ultimate results of the two related Florida actions, as the success or failure of the allegations would significantly impact the entitlement to costs.

Given the ongoing litigation and the direct interest of all parties in the outcome, the court ruled that each party should bear its own costs.

The appellant husband appealed an order for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The property was sold prior to the hearing of the appeal.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The court awarded the respondent wife full indemnity costs of $20,000, finding the husband's conduct in pursuing the appeal and opposing the sale amounted to bad faith litigation.

The appellant lawyer appealed an order dismissing his appeal from an Assessment Officer's decision.

The Assessment Officer had assessed accounts totaling $24,992.55 for legal services, ordered the appellant to refund $2,166.57 to the client, and rejected the appellant's claim for costs of $118,652.53 due to both parties causing delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of principle or fact by the appeal judge in upholding the Assessment Officer's decision.

The court emphasized the extreme lack of proportionality in conducting a 25-day hearing over a $25,000 dispute.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that harmonized wages for a newly merged bargaining unit to the highest pre-existing rate.

The Board of Arbitration based its decision on a well-established pattern of post-merger harmonization in the hospital sector, without analyzing the hospital's arguments that its specific circumstances were unique.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons meeting the minimum standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility as required by Vavilov.

The matter was remitted to the Board.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a co-owned rental property pursuant to the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by refusing an adjournment, disregarding his right of first refusal under a co-ownership agreement, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the majority of the appeal, finding no error in the refusal of the adjournment and concluding the right of first refusal did not apply because the parties had already agreed to sell the property.

The appeal was allowed only to correct a minor error in the order regarding the holding of net proceeds in trust.

The plaintiffs brought a consolidated motion for leave to appeal five orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 to a non-party student who reasonably participated in the motion.

The court also awarded elevated costs of $20,000 to the defendants, noting the plaintiffs filed voluminous materials of over 4,500 pages and improperly adduced fresh evidence through counsel's affidavits.

The moving party, Stefano Carella, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated February 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order was made as to costs due to an outstanding issue regarding whether the moving party was capable of instructing counsel.

The moving parties, representing two groups of plaintiffs, brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Belobaba J. in a class action proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, no costs were awarded.