Brockenshire

The appellant church appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board denying a property tax exemption for a warehouse property adjacent to the church.

The church argued the property was exempt under s. 3(1)3(i) of the Assessment Act as 'land used in connection with' a place of worship, as it was used for storage and youth programs.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by asking whether the property was a 'place of worship' rather than whether it was 'land used in connection with' a place of worship.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member for rehearing.

The applicants sought costs following a successful judicial review application.

The court reviewed the lengthy submissions and deducted amounts claimed for an initial, unsuccessful application brought before the Commercial Court.

The court also disallowed partial indemnity rate increases that exceeded the actual rates charged to the client.

Costs were fixed at $151,065.82, inclusive of fees, GST, and disbursements.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to classify the Bloor Street Transformation Project as a Schedule A/A+ project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, which exempted it from a full environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness and found the City's classification of the road and sidewalk reconstruction project to be reasonable.

The court also held that, in any event, the discretionary remedy of judicial review would be refused due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application, as construction had already begun and halting the project would prejudice the public interest.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs appealed an interlocutory order removing their solicitor of record for allegedly improper conduct.

The solicitor had contacted corporate counsel for a non-party (Cineplex) to clarify ownership issues regarding the premises where the plaintiff's slip and fall occurred.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the solicitor, finding that the motions judge mischaracterized the legal test and misconstrued the facts.

The court held that the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibiting contact with represented parties did not apply, as the non-party was not represented by the defendant's counsel and no confidential information was discussed.

The plaintiff appealed an interlocutory order removing their lawyer as solicitor of record in a slip-and-fall action.

The motion judge had found the lawyer's conduct in contacting corporate counsel of a non-party to be imprudent and in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the non-party was not represented by the defendant's counsel and there was no conflict of interest.

The court held that the motion judge mischaracterized the test for removing a solicitor and that the lawyer's conduct did not bring public confidence in the justice system into question.

The appellant solicitor appealed the decision of Forestell J., which confirmed the assessment of an Assessment Officer following a four-day hearing.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge was correct in concluding that the Assessment Officer's findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.

The appellant physician was found guilty of professional misconduct for improperly conducting a breast examination.

The Discipline Committee imposed a permanent condition on his certificate of registration restricting his practice to male patients.

The physician appealed the penalty.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that section 51(2)3 of the Health Professions Procedural Code permits conditions for a 'specified or indefinite' period, but 'indefinite' does not mean 'permanent'.

The Committee therefore lacked jurisdiction to impose a permanent restriction.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an order for unpaid wages.

The applicant claimed he was owed wages paid 'in kind' by a company owned by his mother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness.

The court held that the OLRB's findings—that the applicant was not an employee during the relevant period and had not established a wage rate—were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on a physician's appeal from a 2006 penalty decision.

The proposed fresh evidence was a 2007 decision finding the physician guilty of professional misconduct for breaching an undertaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that a subsequent conviction is not relevant to assessing the reasonableness of a prior penalty decision.

The Court noted that allowing such evidence would defeat the finality of the trial process and that the College could have adduced the underlying facts of the breach at the original penalty hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Adjudicator's decision upholding the Ministry of Natural Resources' disclosure of certain records to a requester.

The applicant argued the records were exempt from disclosure under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained confidential commercial information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's conclusion that the information was negotiated rather than 'supplied' in confidence was reasonable.

The tenants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering them to pay arrears of rent.

Under section 86 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, a landlord may only apply for arrears if the tenant is in possession of the rental unit at the time of the application.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to make express findings regarding the tenants' occupancy of the units when the applications were brought, despite evidence that they had vacated earlier.

The appeals were allowed, the Tribunal's decisions were set aside, and the matters were remitted for rehearing.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding a secondary plan.

The proposed appeal challenged the OMB's findings that active parkland and developer-dedicated parklands are not permitted in 'protected countryside' areas under the Greenbelt Plan, and its approval of a municipal policy to acquire such lands at minimal or no cost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the OMB's determinations involved the interpretation of policy statements rather than questions of law, and were therefore not subject to appeal.

The appellant appealed a $100 costs order made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario for late notification of a settlement.

The Divisional Court found the costs award unreasonable because the Committee made a factual error regarding disclosure, failed to consider the College's shared responsibility for the delay, and provided no reasons for departing from the parties' joint submission that no costs should be awarded.

The appeal was allowed and the costs order was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which ordered costs as a condition of an interim decision to adjourn a hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the decision, holding that the Discipline Committee lacks the express statutory authority required to order costs on an adjournment.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that the collective agreement did not require the respondent City to pay the Ontario Health Premium for its full-time employees.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, following recent Court of Appeal jurisprudence on similar grievances.

The Court found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement language, concluding that the parties did not intend the employer to pay the income tax-based premium, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers ordering the production of documents.

The documents, which contained confidential legal advice, had been inadvertently disclosed to the College by a secretary employed by the board.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the secretary lacked authority to waive solicitor-client privilege and that the privilege should be upheld.

The court ordered the return of the documents and the reconstitution of the prosecutorial function with a different prosecutor.

The applicant, a Convention refugee from Iran, sought a Certificate of Qualification to teach in Ontario.

She was unable to provide original documentation of her qualifications because the Iranian government, her persecutor, held the records.

The Ontario College of Teachers refused her application for failing to provide original documents.

The applicant sought a re-evaluation and accommodation from the Registration Appeals Committee, which denied her request.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Committee's requirement for original documents was prima facie discriminatory based on place of origin.

The Court found that the Committee failed to properly apply the Human Rights Code, failed to accommodate the applicant, and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision.

The decision was rescinded and remitted for rehearing.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering the return of a real estate deposit with interest to the respondent purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the deal was dead after the purchaser failed to give notice under a condition inserted for his sole benefit.

The court declined to accept a new affidavit as fresh evidence and awarded costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of the school board's decision to exclude a student from a regular class and require an assessment prior to determining placement.

The board offered a special education placement pending the assessment, which the litigation guardian refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's position was not unreasonable, and declined to order the deletion of the student's records.

The appellant appealed an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal upholding the Director's decision to require audited financial statements as a condition for renewing children's residence licences.

The appellant argued the Director lacked statutory authority to use this information to set per diem rates.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of the statute and reasonable in concluding the information was not being sought for an unauthorized purpose.