Timothy D. Ray

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which suspended its liquor licence for 14 days after finding it allowed overcrowding and permitted a patron to smoke marijuana on the licensed patio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appeal lies only on a question of law, and the appellant's grounds were essentially challenges to the Board's findings of fact and credibility determinations.

At the opening of a judicial review hearing, the applicant moved for leave to adduce fresh evidence and subsequently sought an adjournment to bring the new evidence before the Information and Privacy Commissioner for reconsideration.

The respondents did not oppose the adjournment.

The Divisional Court vacated a prior order to permit the motion and granted the adjournment.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The action, arising from alleged dog attacks in 1996 and 1997, had been delayed for 11 years since the events.

The Divisional Court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an explanation for the delay and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's action was dismissed for delay.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board denying their request to consolidate and hold a single joint hearing regarding a proposed development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

On appeal, the respondent raised a new jurisdictional argument for the first time, asserting that certain regulations exempted the potential water hearings from consolidation.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter to a new panel of the OMB to consider the jurisdictional question with the benefit of a full factual context, and adjourned the appeal sine die.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision regarding health benefits coverage.

The City brought a preliminary motion to quash the application for delay, which the court dismissed, finding no inordinate delay or prejudice.

On the merits, the court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision.

The court found that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the language of the collective agreement was unambiguous and correctly declined to admit extrinsic evidence.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The police report and the defendant's initial pleadings identified the defendant driver as the owner of the vehicle.

After the two-year limitation period expired, the plaintiff obtained a vehicle ownership search revealing a leasing company was the actual owner.

The plaintiff successfully moved to add the leasing company as a defendant.

The third-party insurer appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the discoverability principle, the plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered the true owner earlier.

Alternatively, special circumstances justified adding the defendant despite the expired limitation period.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The motions judge provided no reasons, requiring the Divisional Court to hear the matter de novo.

The action, commenced in 1998 for false arrest, saw little activity until 2008 when the plaintiff served an expert report.

The court found the delay was not intentional or contumelious, as the plaintiff had difficulty obtaining an expert willing to testify against police.

The defendants failed to show prejudice or a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.

The appeal was dismissed, though the court strongly criticized the motions judge's failure to provide reasons.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month for five years and thereafter until the respondent wife obtained employment.

The parties had a short relationship of three-and-a-half years with no children.

The Divisional Court upheld the quantum of support, finding no palpable and overriding error, but found the indeterminate duration to be an error in principle given the short marriage.

The appeal was allowed in part to impose a firm termination date for spousal support.

The plaintiff left the defendant's store without paying for a 65-cent newspaper.

She was confronted by a security officer, returned to the store, and provided identification, but refused to sign a trespass notice.

The security officer restrained and handcuffed her until police arrived.

The plaintiff successfully sued for unlawful confinement in Small Claims Court, being awarded $4,500 in damages and $1,500 in costs.

The defendant appealed, arguing the arrest was justified under the Criminal Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the arrest and forcible detention were unlawful as the security officer had no reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiff merely for refusing to sign a trespass notice.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award ordering the pre-hearing production of a grievor's psychiatric records from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The applicant argued that under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act, only the Divisional Court could order such production.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the legislation, finding that section 35(5) permits pre-hearing disclosure of mental health records pursuant to a summons or order without requiring a section 35(9) determination, which applies to the admission of evidence at a hearing.

However, the Court found the arbitrator's order was over-broad and amended it to limit the scope of records and require initial disclosure only to the arbitrator to assess relevance and privacy interests.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee finding of professional misconduct and mandatory revocation of his registration for sexually abusing a patient.

The appellant and the complainant had a pre-existing intimate and sexual relationship before she became his patient.

The Divisional Court found the Committee's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider whether the sexual relationship arose out of the pre-existing spousal relationship rather than the professional-patient relationship, misinterpreting the concept of 'incidental' treatment.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant, a lawyer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission prohibiting him from appearing as counsel before it until he provided an unqualified apology for his conduct during a hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission's hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel had pre-judged the matter and prepared its reasons in advance.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively conducting a contempt hearing, a power reserved for the Divisional Court under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The matter was not remitted to the Commission, as the applicant's conduct had already been referred to the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board refusing his request for an adjournment and subsequently dismissing his application for review under s. 116 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's refusal to grant the adjournment was reasonable and did not constitute a denial of natural justice.

The court noted the lateness of the request, lack of consent, prejudice to the responding parties, and the applicant's failure to obtain necessary documents in advance.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the respondent had complied with the Minutes of Settlement by paying a lump sum of $27,000.

The appellant argued the respondent had a continuing obligation to make bimonthly salary payments and that the contra proferentem rule should apply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the handwritten Minutes were clear on their face and contained no reference to continuing salary payments.

The court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion.

The appellant appealed a decision, which was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal the motions judge's order that there be no order as to costs on the appellant's unsuccessful motion under Rule 49.09.

The respondent argued that the costs consequences of an unsuccessful summary judgment motion under Rule 20.06 should apply.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that Rule 20 costs consequences do not apply to Rule 49.09 motions.

Finding no reversible error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion, the court dismissed the respondent's motion for leave to appeal.

As success was divided, no costs were awarded for the appeal.