W. Danial Newton

Peter Keeash was convicted of second-degree murder, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility for the life sentence and the sentences for the other convictions.

The Crown sought an 18-year parole ineligibility period and consecutive sentences for the other charges, while the defence sought 12 years and concurrent sentences.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's character, and Gladue factors, including his traumatic background and the fact that two victims were Indigenous women, which required primary consideration of denunciation and deterrence.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with 14 years of parole ineligibility for murder, and concurrent sentences of five years for threats and forcible confinement of one victim, and three years for threats to another.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA submission were also made.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which had rejected a joint submission on penalty for a member who pleaded guilty to professional misconduct involving inappropriate comments.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had substituted its own penalty, finding the proposed three-month suspension unduly harsh.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee erred in law by applying a 'fitness test' rather than the stringent 'public interest test' established in Anthony-Cook.

The Court found that the joint submission did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and ordered that the jointly proposed penalty be imposed.

The applicant municipality sought to stay a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) hearing pending a judicial review application.

The municipality argued that the HRTO's administrative delay and the death of its key witness caused irreparable harm, and that the HRTO had refused to hear its motion to stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay application, finding it premature because the HRTO had indicated it would address the motion to stay at the upcoming hearing.

The court reiterated that administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial review is sought.

The plaintiff, Carolyn Rose Jaroli, sued Dr. Dorie-Anna Dueck, a medical oncologist, for negligence in recommending chemotherapy (specifically Taxol) for her breast cancer, alleging it caused her to develop peripheral neuropathy.

The court found that Dr. Dueck met the standard of care, noting the challenging circumstances due to a lost sentinel lymph node and the prevailing medical guidelines in 2014.

The court preferred the defendant's expert testimony, which supported Dr. Dueck's clinical judgment.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that her current, long-term peripheral neuropathy symptoms were caused by the Taxol treatment, as opposed to other pre-existing health conditions like diabetes and osteoarthritis.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Finn Way General Contractors Inc., brought a motion seeking leave to admit a late-served expert report concerning construction delays and costs.

The defendant, Lakehead University, opposed the motion, arguing the report was served late and that expert opinion evidence was unnecessary.

The court found a reasonable explanation for the late service and no prejudice to the defendant.

However, the court ultimately dismissed the motion, ruling that the expert report was not necessary to assist the trier of fact, as its observations were conclusions lacking discernible analysis and usurped the role of the trial judge.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for a catastrophic impairment designation following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by failing to properly assess his mental and pain disorders and by ignoring key psychiatric evidence.

The LAT had subsequently issued a reconsideration decision that supplemented its original reasons and addressed these alleged errors, concluding that even if it had erred, the result would not change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT acted within its jurisdiction under its reconsideration rules to review the evidence in light of alleged legal errors and confirm its original decision.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that time-barred her application for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The LAT found the two-year limitation period expired because the appellant received the denial letter on the day it was written.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the LAT erred in law by making a material finding of fact without evidence and by reversing the onus of proof onto the appellant to show when the letter was received.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing.

The mother brought a motion to change a 2016 order, seeking sole decision-making, variation of child support, payment of extraordinary expenses, and adjustment of the expense allocation ratio.

The court denied the request for sole decision-making and international travel without the father's consent, finding no basis for such changes.

However, the court granted the variation of child support, accepting the mother's calculation of arrears and increasing ongoing support based on the father's current income.

The father was ordered to pay past extraordinary expenses, and the future pro rata sharing of extraordinary expenses was adjusted to 70% for the father and 30% for the mother, with income imputed to the mother for this calculation.

A Support Deduction Order was also granted for collection through the Family Responsibility Office.

This endorsement concerns the costs award following a judgment in favour of Finn Way General Contractor Inc. for $134,606.

Finn Way sought $85,000 in costs, while Superior Masonry (Thunder Bay) Ltd. proposed $25,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, fixed costs at $25,000 plus HST and disbursements, disallowing travel expenses for out-of-town counsel as no special expertise was required.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sheard J. dated January 10, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $7,500.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of McEwen J. dated January 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court declined to award costs to the successful responding parties because they failed to file a Costs Outline.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party did not file materials and the Public Guardian and Trustee did not seek costs, no costs were ordered.

The City of Thunder Bay sought costs on a full indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an order for an arbitrator's appointment due to the respondent's refusal to participate in arbitration.

The court, having previously ordered full indemnity costs, reviewed the City's submissions.

Despite the respondent's failure to file submissions, the court found the application was made unnecessarily complex by the respondent's irrelevant assertions.

Applying the principles from Boucher et al. v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount of $17,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding it fair and reasonable given the circumstances and the respondent's conduct.

The applicant school board applied for judicial review of a labour arbitration award that upheld two grievances filed by the union on behalf of an employee with mental health disabilities.

The arbitrator had found that the employee was entitled to a sick leave refresh and that his return to work plan should have been accommodated through remote work.

Applying the Vavilov reasonableness standard, the Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's interpretations of the collective agreement and conclusions regarding medical evidence were internally coherent, justified, and reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that it lacked just cause to dismiss a Black employee and that the dismissal was tainted by anti-Black racism.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, deferring to the Board's factual findings and credibility assessments.

The Court upheld the Board's reliance on expert evidence regarding implicit bias and circumstantial evidence to conclude that race was a factor in the termination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses a procedural breach in a motion to change spousal support.

The respondent improperly filed an affidavit in a related Family Responsibility Office enforcement proceeding, which included a confidential transcript of a case/settlement conference.

The court found this violated Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules and the Court Transcript Standards and Procedures Manual.

The judge ordered the immediate removal and destruction of the affidavit and transcript, prohibited the respondent from relying upon or disseminating any confidential statements from the conference, and mandated the destruction of all copies.

A follow-up appearance was scheduled to ensure compliance and explain the error.

The plaintiff general contractor sued the defendant masonry subcontractor for breach of contract after the defendant withdrew its bid due to a calculation error.

The court found that the defendant was bound by its bid and breached the contract by unilaterally withdrawing.

However, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the parties had agreed to an $80,000 reduction in the bid price.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the difference between the defendant's original bid and the replacement subcontractor's price, plus mitigation costs and lost markup.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought four motions for summary judgment to recover approximately $632,000 owing on various mortgages, charges, lines of credit, and a credit card, and sought writs of possession.

The defendant, Albert Peter James Francoeur, advanced arguments characteristic of an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant, claiming to appear as "CEO" of "Freedom Trust RN 623 018 037 CA" and asserting that legal title had been transferred to the Department of Finance Canada.

The court found the defendant's arguments to be without merit and consistent with OPCA tactics as described in Meads v. Meads.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, the defendant's counterclaims were dismissed, and costs were awarded to RBC.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a pharmacist who admitted to professional misconduct for submitting false billings to the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan.

The College argued the Panel erred by not imposing standard ownership restrictions on the pharmacist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's decision was owed great deference, did not misapprehend the evidence, and reasonably balanced the principles of protection of the public, proportionality, and rehabilitation without imposing the requested restrictions.

The City of Thunder Bay brought an application seeking to compel a former lessee, Dawn MacKay, to participate in arbitration to determine compensation for leasehold improvements upon the expiry of her lease.

Ms. MacKay had refused to appoint an arbitrator, disputing the lease terms, claiming land ownership, and alleging unfair valuation.

The court dismissed Ms. MacKay's arguments as unmeritorious, finding she had acknowledged the lease and that her ownership claims were irrelevant to the arbitration process.

The court ordered Ms. MacKay to appoint her arbitrator within 30 days, failing which the City could apply for the court to appoint one on her behalf.

The City was awarded full indemnity costs due to Ms. MacKay's protracted refusal to participate.