Cullin

The applicant appealed an order granting the interim partition and sale of a jointly owned home prior to trial.

The parties, former spouses, separated in 2016, with the applicant remaining in the home.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's application of the principles governing partition and sale, noting the applicant failed to establish prejudice and the respondent had been deprived of her equity for over seven years.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Provincial Police concluding that the misconduct of two officers, one of whom struck and killed the applicant's spouse with a police vehicle, was 'not of a serious nature'.

The Divisional Court held that the OPP was required to provide written reasons justifying its conclusion, given the severity of the incident and the statutory framework.

The court found the OPP's decision unreasonable because it merely listed generic factors without explaining how they applied to the specific officers.

The decision was quashed and remitted for a fresh determination.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claims for a catastrophic impairment designation, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law in the LAT Vice-Chair's application of the 'but for' causation test or her factual findings that the appellant's ongoing impairments were not accident-related.

The court also held that the LAT correctly dismissed the claims for treatment plans and attendant care benefits, as the appellant had no accident-related impairments during the relevant periods.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had continuous impairments, they were not substantial and did not substantially restrict his activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court applied the correctness standard of review and found no error of law in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring him to pay $193,596.50 to the respondent for her share of a joint bank account following their separation.

The appellant argued there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the quantum owed and that he was entitled to a trial under Rule 16(7) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in relying on the appellant's failure to respond to a Request to Admit, which deemed the quantum admitted.

The court held the motion judge properly applied the summary judgment framework and made no palpable and overriding error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a grocery store for requiring her to wear a mask.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence substantiating a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's request for further medical evidence was reasonable and that the Tribunal did not breach procedural fairness, as the applicant was given multiple opportunities to provide the required information.

The tenants appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that terminated their tenancy for non-payment of rent and awarded partial rent abatements for maintenance issues.

The tenants argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act, failed to find serious breaches by the landlords that would preclude eviction, and exhibited bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Board's conclusions were reasonable, the tenants were not entitled to self-abate rent, and the minor errors alleged did not warrant interference.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of parenting terms in final consent orders and imposing sanctions that suspended the respondent mother's child support obligations and precluded the father from bringing further proceedings.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of contempt, noting the father's deliberate and financially motivated non-compliance.

However, the court set aside the sanctions, finding that suspending ongoing child support and imposing an unbounded penalty were errors in principle.

The court substituted a fixed penalty of $36,000 against the father, stayed pending his commencement of a motion to change support.

The appellant father appealed a finding of contempt and the resulting sanctions for breaching parenting terms in a final consent order.

The motion judge had suspended the respondent mother's child support obligations and barred the father from bringing further proceedings until he complied.

The Divisional Court upheld the contempt finding, noting the father's deliberate and financially motivated breaches.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the sanctions, finding that suspending ongoing child support and imposing an unbounded penalty were errors in principle.

The court substituted a fixed penalty of $36,000 against the father, stayed pending his commencement of a motion to change support.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant's physical impairments, it erred in law by disregarding and failing to appreciate relevant evidence regarding his long-standing mental health impairments.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned to the Tribunal for a re-hearing before a different member.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding they misused the process of terminating a tenancy for personal use and awarding compensation to the tenants.

The landlords argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive notice of the hearing due to an email security issue while travelling abroad.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB's conclusion that notice was received was a finding of fact not subject to appeal, and that the landlords' own version of events confirmed they improperly sought to oust the tenants to sell the property.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying her claims for various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the insurer failed to properly manage her request for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the adjudicator correctly concluded that the issue of catastrophic impairment was not properly before the tribunal because the appellant had not initiated a claim or provided an evidentiary basis for it.

The court found no errors of law in the adjudicator's decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his dental malpractice claim.

During a tooth extraction, the appellant exhibited signs of distress, prompting the respondent dentist to administer nitroglycerin under the belief the appellant was having a heart attack.

The appellant later suffered a bradycardic event at the hospital and claimed psychological injuries.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent met the standard of care in an emergency situation and that there was no factual causation between the administration of nitroglycerin and the subsequent hospital event.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision ordering it to pay for disputed chiropractic treatment plans once incurred.

The insurer argued the LAT lacked jurisdiction to order payment for expenses not yet incurred prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT has broad remedial powers to determine entitlement to benefits, and requiring claimants to self-fund disputed treatments before accessing the LAT would defeat the consumer protection purpose of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision declining to enforce a settlement agreement.

The appellant had accepted a Rule 49 offer to settle for $25,000, but the respondents resiled, arguing changed circumstances.

The motion judge found the offer was validly accepted but declined to enforce it, inferring that the respondents' counsel made a mistake by failing to withdraw the offer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by basing his decision on an argument not advanced by the parties and by inferring a mistake without evidence.

The settlement agreement was declared valid and enforceable.