W.L. Whalen

The moving party, an agricultural marketing board, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that refused to grant an interim injunction against the responding chicken farmers.

The motions judge had characterized the dispute as private litigation, conflicting with another judge's decision in the same action that granted intervenor status based on substantial public interest.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision, as the claim involved a legislated federal-provincial marketing system and public law principles under the Farm Products Marketing Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of the investigative process leading to charges by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

On a motion to determine who must file the record under Rule 68.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the Committee was not acting as a court or tribunal in its investigative function.

Therefore, Rule 68.04(1)(b) applied, requiring the applicants to prepare and file the record.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tribunal regarding his eligibility for disability support.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to make findings of fact on crucial medical evidence, including reports from the appellant's family doctor and a specialist confirming his long-term disabling conditions.

The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetency.

The appellant argued that the Committee's refusal to grant him an adjournment due to his medical unfitness to instruct counsel or participate in the hearing constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the uncontradicted medical evidence established the appellant's inability to proceed, and that the Committee's refusal to adjourn the hearing was a denial of natural justice.

The Committee's decision was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a different panel.

The appellant appealed a Board decision that found it had no jurisdiction to hear a claim for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board correctly found the land was voluntarily dedicated rather than expropriated under s. 1(1)(a), it erred in concluding that s. 1(1)(b) required a taking of land.

Section 1(1)(b) contemplates an action for injurious affection where no expropriation has occurred.

The Court also found the Board erred in its interpretation of the limitation period under s. 22(1), holding that time runs from the completion of construction when actual damage is discovered, not from a pre-construction opinion.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a full hearing.

The Minister of Health and Long Term Care appealed a decision of the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding the disclosure of records of the Physician Services Committee.

The Minister argued the records were exempt under the 'labour relations' provision in s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commissioner that 'labour relations' refers to the collective relationship between an employer and its employees.

Since members of the Ontario Medical Association are not employees of the Ministry, the exemption did not apply.

The purchaser of a new home claimed compensation from the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, alleging she should have received legal title to a side yard rather than an easement.

The Program denied the claim, but the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal ordered compensation under s. 14(1)(a) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Program appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 14(1)(a) protects purchasers from financial loss when a vendor fails to complete a contract, and does not apply to alleged title deficiencies after a transaction has closed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found the respondent was a 25% shareholder in the family cartage business and had been oppressed.

The trial judge had ordered the appellants to buy out the respondent's interest at fair market value without a minority discount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable, the remedy showed no error in principle, and the costs award was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review to quash a penalty imposed on a police officer by a retired superintendent following a disciplinary hearing.

The Commissioner argued that while the superintendent had delegated authority to conduct the hearing, he lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Police Services Act contemplates the person conducting the hearing also imposing the penalty.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to refuse judicial review because the Commissioner had fully participated in the penalty hearing and invited the superintendent to exercise the very jurisdiction she later challenged.

The appellant material supplier appealed a master's order discharging its construction lien and vacating its certificate of action.

The master had found the lien was registered out of time by applying the 'deemed completion' provision of the Construction Lien Act to the parties' prevenient arrangement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the 'deemed completion' provision does not apply to a prevenient arrangement.

Instead, the time limit for preserving a lien under a prevenient arrangement begins to run from the date of the last delivery of materials, meaning the appellant's lien was perfected in time.