W.L. Whalen

The young person appealed a conviction entered by the youth court.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing identification evidence, applying the W.D. framework, and misapprehending evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment or application of the law.

The appellant sought leave to appeal three concurrent sentences of six months' imprisonment for assault with a weapon, uttering a death threat, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace against his younger sister.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to impose a conditional sentence and placing undue emphasis on punitive aims.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the offences involved repeated acts of violence over an hour to exercise control over the victim.

Leave to appeal was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

He argued that the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, improperly rejected family members' evidence, improperly took judicial notice of the effects of alcohol, and failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the police officer's evidence.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge that while some of the trial judge's conduct was inappropriate, it did not compromise the appearance of fairness.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the lower court's assessment and dismissed the appeal.

The young person appealed the trial judge's decision to sentence him as an adult for second-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by directly deducting two and a half years of pre-trial custody rather than treating it as a discretionary consideration.

The appeal was allowed, the adult sentence was set aside, and the maximum youth sentence was imposed to better facilitate the young person's rehabilitation.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an urgent application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a cease and desist order regarding an unlawful strike by the Amalgamated Transit Union that shut down public transit.

The Board Chair held a teleconference hearing at 5:30 a.m. without the Union's participation, granting the order.

Later that day, a Vice-Chair reconsidered the decision, limiting each side's presentation time, and upheld the order.

The Union applied for judicial review, arguing a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion to abridge its procedures and that the urgent circumstances justified the expedited process and limited presentation time.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Hamilton to revoke their adult entertainment parlour licence.

The municipality had passed a by-law to reduce the number of such parlours, allowing revocation if a business was not actively carried on within a reasonable time.

The applicants had not opened for business because they were waiting for a liquor licence, which was delayed due to unpaid retail sales tax from another business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness, bias, or bad faith.

The court held that the municipality's finding that the business had not opened within a reasonable time was not patently unreasonable, as the delay in obtaining a liquor licence was not the municipality's responsibility.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating her tenancy for failure to pay rent and refusing to set aside the termination order.

The tenant had a history of paying rent late due to the timing of her alimony cheques and had breached a previous conditional order requiring payment by the 10th of each month.

The Divisional Court found that the Board Member committed a breach of natural justice by failing to afford the tenant an opportunity to provide evidence or make submissions concerning relief from forfeiture under s. 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

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

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) which reinstated a police officer who had been terminated by a Hearing Officer.

The officer, who developed a cocaine addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder while working undercover, had pled guilty to drug possession and disciplinary charges.

The employer and the officer had presented a joint submission on penalty proposing reinstatement with strict conditions, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of termination.

OCCPS found the Hearing Officer's decision unreasonable and substituted the joint submission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Chief of Police's appeal, holding that OCCPS correctly applied the reasonableness standard of review and reasonably concluded that the Hearing Officer ignored relevant evidence and the employer's duty to accommodate the officer's disability.

The appellant physician sued the respondent newspapers for breach of confidence and conversion after they published photographs taken during a cosmetic surgery.

In the civil proceeding, the respondents sought production of documents relating to disciplinary proceedings before the College of Nurses and the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The motions judge ordered the documents included in the appellant's Affidavit of Documents.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, holding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 prohibits the use of College documents in civil proceedings, meaning they are not required to be disclosed in an Affidavit of Documents.

The appellant wife appealed an order setting aside final orders made at an uncontested trial regarding custody, access, and support.

The respondent husband's pleadings had previously been struck.

The motion judge set aside the final orders relying on Rule 15(14) of the Family Law Rules and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 15(14) applies only to motions to change, not set aside, final orders.

The court further found that the stringent tests for setting aside a default judgment or invoking inherent jurisdiction were not met, and the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors regarding disclosure.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal in a slip and fall action, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful respondents.

The respondents sought $14,659, while the appellant argued she was impecunious and the claimed fees were excessive due to duplication by senior and junior counsel.

The court held that the appellant's financial circumstances were irrelevant to the costs issue, but agreed that the opposite party should not pay for duplication of counsel on a non-complex appeal.

Costs were fixed at $8,500 all inclusive.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent undertook property renovations in detrimental reliance on the appellants' negligent misrepresentations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence showed the respondent commenced renovations long before any representation was made, and the trial judge failed to establish a substantial connection between the alleged losses and the misrepresentations.

The trial decision was set aside and the claim dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which found that monthly administrative fees charged to tenants over and above the cost of hydro constituted illegal rent.

The landlord argued the issue fell under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tenant Protection Act is remedial legislation that takes precedence over the Ontario Energy Board regulation.

The Court found the Tribunal's decision that the additional charges were illegal and had to be refunded was reasonable and correct.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had found that the employee's acceptance of four months' severance pay did not constitute accord and satisfaction, as the Employment Standards Act payment was not issued separately.

The trial judge also declined to reduce the notice period for failure to mitigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions on these issues of mixed fact and law to be reasonable and well-supported by the evidence.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties were unable to agree on costs and filed written submissions.

The respondent College sought costs of $27,039.05, noting the extensive preparation required, including responding to constitutional arguments that were abandoned late.

The appellant argued the appeal was largely a repetition of an earlier interlocutory motion and suggested costs be fixed at $10,000.

The Divisional Court fixed the costs of the appeal payable by the appellant to the respondent at $19,000 in fees plus disbursements.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her personal injury claim following a slip and fall near a bus stop.

At trial, the judge accepted the evidence of a bus driver over the appellant's testimony regarding the cause of the fall.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his credibility findings and in limiting cross-examination of the bus driver on a 'will say' statement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice regarding the cross-examination.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which revoked his certificate of registration for sexual abuse and professional misconduct.

The appellant argued for a 'spousal exemption' to the sexual abuse provisions and claimed the legislation was applied retroactively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the concurrent doctor-patient and sexual relationships met the definition of sexual abuse, no spousal exemption existed, and the legislation was not applied retroactively.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario proposed to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.

The respondent moved to stay the hearing, alleging witness tampering by an employee of the appellant.

The appellant retained a private investigator to interview witnesses.

The respondent sought a summons for the investigator to testify and produce interview records.

The Board refused, citing irrelevance.

The Divisional Court overturned the Board's decision, finding a breach of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the investigator's evidence was material to the stay motion, the judicial review application was not premature due to the denial of natural justice, and the evidence was not protected by solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Chief of Police and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) regarding a complaint against two police officers.

The Chief of Police declined to deal with the complaint because it was filed more than six months after the incident.

The applicant then requested a review by OCCPS, but missed the 30-day statutory deadline.

OCCPS determined it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, confirming that legislative amendments removed OCCPS's discretion to extend the deadline and finding the Chief's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The respondent was assaulted at work and claimed benefits for traumatic vertebrobasilar ischemia (TVBI).

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denied the claim, preferring medical evidence that the assault did not cause TVBI.

The Tribunal later upheld its decision on reconsideration after reviewing new evidence from a co-worker.

The Divisional Court quashed the reconsideration decision as patently unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence, resolved the conflicting medical opinions, and reached a reasonable conclusion.