A. Cusinato

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn its appeal of a decision by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The appellant sought the adjournment pending the outcome of an unrelated judicial review application by another licensee challenging the Board's institutional impartiality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that an adjournment could prejudice the respondent and delay the resolution of four-year-old allegations.

Crucially, the court noted that the appellant had never raised the issue of bias in its own case and declined to amend its Notice of Appeal to do so.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation for injuries sustained during an assault.

The Board found the appellant contributed to his injuries by participating in illegal drug-related activities.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by admitting hearsay evidence from a police officer without adequate prior notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board is permitted to admit hearsay evidence and the appellant received sufficient notice of the allegations to satisfy the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario convicting it of infractions under the Liquor Licence Act, including permitting drunkenness, selling liquor to an intoxicated person, and overcrowding a patio.

The appellant argued there was a breach of natural justice due to delayed notice, that the Board misapprehended evidence, and that the defence of necessity applied to the overcrowding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no unreasonable delay in notice, no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence, and that the defence of necessity could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The appellants, tenants in a land-lease community, appealed a Rental Housing Tribunal decision terminating their tenancies.

The respondent landlords sought to evict the tenants to fulfill severance conditions and build retirement homes on the property.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the landlords required the lands in good faith within a reasonable time, were not in serious breach of their maintenance obligations, and that it was not unfair to grant the eviction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The City of Ottawa applied for judicial review of an arbitration award which held that the City was obligated under the collective agreement to pay the costs associated with the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review.

The court found that the arbitration board's conclusion was logical and founded in the language of the collective agreement, and therefore dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissing her claim for compensation related to alleged physical and sexual abuse by family members.

The Divisional Court held that the Board, comprised of lay persons, provided adequate reasons and made no clear error in law in finding insufficient corroborative evidence to prove the allegations.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that imposed two conditions on a grievor's reinstatement without allowing the parties to make submissions on those conditions.

The Divisional Court found a lack of procedural fairness, as the parties were denied a proper opportunity to be heard.

The court quashed the two conditions and remitted the matter to the arbitrator for reconsideration following submissions by counsel.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating their tenancy and ordering them to pay repair costs.

The appellants argued the Tribunal erred in law by making findings unsupported by evidence and failing to exercise discretion under section 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the conclusion that the tenants caused damage beyond normal wear and tear.

The Court also held the Tribunal member properly considered section 84 and reasonably concluded it would be unfair to the landlord to continue the tenancy.