Breese Davies

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent.

After failing to comply with a previous court order to pay ongoing rent and arrears, the stay of eviction was lifted.

The court granted the appellant a final extension to perfect his appeal by January 20, 2025.

When the appellant failed to file any materials by the deadline, the respondent requested a dismissal.

The court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the court's order.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency to screen out his complaint against Toronto Police Service officers.

The Director had concluded the complaint, which included allegations of murder conspiracies and cloning, was frivolous and lacked an air of reality.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Director's decision was justified, intelligible, and transparent.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural fairness breaches, noting the low threshold at the screening stage.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding her dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from her failure to attend internal investigations and her use of a personal Twitter account to make inappropriate comments about the Chief of Police and others.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and accommodation for her post-traumatic stress disorder, and that her dismissal infringed her Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing officer reasonably accommodated her and properly proceeded in her absence.

The Court also upheld the Commission's finding that sections 7 and 15 of the Charter were not engaged, and that her dismissal was a proportionate limit on her freedom of expression under section 2(b).

The landlord brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had failed to pay ongoing rent and lump sum arrears as previously ordered by the court, accumulating over $50,000 in arrears.

The court found it would be an abuse of process to allow the tenant to continue living rent-free and lifted the stay of eviction.

The court also granted the tenant a final 10-day extension to perfect his appeal due to delays in obtaining hearing transcripts.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director, which confirmed the police chief's finding that the investigating officers did not neglect their duty.

The applicant alleged the officers failed to conduct a thorough investigation by not obtaining relevant subway surveillance video of an assault.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Director's decision reasonable because the officers had promptly requested the video but were inadvertently misled by the transit authority regarding its existence and the correct subway car number.

The court also found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness by the Director.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of racial discrimination against a retail store employee, as well as the Tribunal's subsequent reconsideration decision.

The applicant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair because the Tribunal limited his cross-examination on will-say statements and restricted evidence regarding the adequacy of the store's internal investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings and narrowing of the issues were procedurally fair.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's merits decision was reasonable, as it was transparent, intelligible, and justified by the evidentiary record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision declaring her a vexatious litigant after she filed over 160 applications.

The applicant argued the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and the decision was unreasonable, seeking to adduce a surreptitious recording of the hearing as new evidence.

The Divisional Court admitted the recording but dismissed the application, finding that the HRTO provided a fair hearing and reasonably concluded the applicant's conduct was vexatious.

The appellants, two veterinarians, appealed the penalty and costs orders made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario following findings of professional misconduct related to inadequate record keeping and other issues.

Dr. Van Arem appealed his one-month suspension, arguing it was disproportionate.

Both appellants appealed the costs orders, arguing the Committee failed to properly account for their offers to settle and the time spent on unproven allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding the suspension was within the appropriate range and fit given the aggravating factors, and finding no error in principle in the Committee's discretionary costs decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding rental arrears.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the respondents conceded a legal error by the Board and consented to the appeal being allowed.

The court issued a consent order setting aside the Board's decision and directing the disbursement of funds held in trust, with no costs awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated September 25, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Mills J. dated September 23, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as abandoned, without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal a lower court decision, to admit fresh evidence, and for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence and the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the moving party's motion for leave to appeal a decision dated June 27, 2024.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.00.

Following the dismissal of the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, the tenant sought the return of $1,350 he had deposited with the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice.

The court found that the funds were paid towards ongoing rent and arrears that the tenant was legally obliged to pay.

The court ordered the funds, plus any accrued interest, to be paid to the landlord.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of D.A. Jarvis J. dated October 15, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Harris J. dated August 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the municipal respondent and $5,000 to the county and individual respondents.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McSweeney J. dated July 24, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellants, residential tenants, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy and ordering eviction for rental arrears.

The court previously directed the appellants to pay ongoing monthly rent and to perfect their appeal by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

After the appellants failed to pay rent, the court lifted the stay of the eviction order.

The appellants subsequently failed to perfect their appeal by the deadline, resulting in the appeal being dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order directing the Children's Aid Society to conduct an assessment under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting that while the parties agreed the order was a mistake, such an error should be corrected on a motion in the court below under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the responding party.