David R. Aston

The appellants appealed a decision finding that premises occupied by the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation were not exempt from municipal taxation.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's findings that the Foundation was a tenant under the Assessment Act and that there was no shared patrimony between the Hospital and the Foundation that would extend the hospital's tax exemption to the Foundation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a private school's decision to expel a student after he admitted to smoking marijuana in a dormitory room.

The Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the decision because the school was created by a Special Act, making its disciplinary decisions an exercise of a statutory power.

The majority quashed the expulsion decision, finding a breach of procedural fairness because the student and his parents were denied an adequate opportunity to be heard regarding the appropriate sanction.

The court declined to order the school to confer a diploma, remitting the matter to the Head of School.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decisions allowing a union grievance regarding the calculation of instructional minutes under a collective agreement.

The dispute centered on whether 'early bells' at certain schools required students to enter before the published start time, thereby exceeding the 300-minute instructional day cap.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decisions, finding that the arbitrator fundamentally misapprehended the nature of the grievance and the evidence, and unreasonably awarded compensation without proof that teachers worked additional minutes or performed different duties.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The moving party appealed a joint custody order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, noting that jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal under s. 110, finding little apparent merit to the appeal based on the deferential standard of review for custody orders.

Furthermore, the court noted that both parties sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding post-trial events, making a variation application based on a material change in circumstances a more appropriate remedy than an appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The Director had screened out a complaint regarding seized funds and confirmed a decision by the Hamilton Police Service not to proceed to a disciplinary hearing regarding allegations of excessive force.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside a criminal conviction or order the return of funds on judicial review, and that the Director's decisions were reasonable.

The applicant chiropractor sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a written caution issued by the College of Chiropractors of Ontario regarding the tone and language of a letter sent to a patient.

The applicant argued the Board failed to address a claim of reasonable apprehension of bias concerning a committee member who had co-authored an academic article critical of the applicant's treatment philosophy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no merit to the bias claim and concluding that the Board's decision to uphold the written caution was reasonable.

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

The Board found the assault was directly related to his activities as a drug trafficker and his injury was a foreseeable consequence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of proportionality principles or its admission of hearsay evidence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision denying him leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Court of Appeal had ordered the appeal to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as a panel appeal, noting that the appropriate route is to seek leave to appeal from a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

With the consent of the parties, the matter was converted to a motion for leave to appeal to be determined by one member of the panel sitting as a Superior Court judge.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that had dismissed a previous motion for leave to appeal.

The previous motion was dismissed due to the moving party's failure to pay costs and comply with prior procedural orders.

The court dismissed the current motion, finding that the previous judge properly exercised discretion in dismissing the motion based on procedural default and non-payment of costs.

The court noted the moving party lacked standing to appeal interlocutory orders until complying with or varying the prior orders.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct after he assaulted four officers.

He argued the Commission failed to consider the duty to accommodate his alleged disabilities, including alcohol addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that his conditions rendered him unable to perform his essential duties, and concluded the penalty of dismissal was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying her application for compensation for alleged sexual assaults.

The Board found her evidence vague and unreliable, concluding she did not establish she was a victim of a crime.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Board's findings were factual and not subject to appeal, which is limited to questions of law.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to provide a therapy report form or by not adjourning the hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $19,263.30 for breach of a contract to supply school uniforms.

The trial judge found the appellant breached an agreement to purchase the respondent's remaining inventory and that the respondent had reasonably mitigated its damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of mitigation.

The court also upheld the trial judge's costs award, noting it was a reasonable exercise of discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had failed to exercise his statutory right to appeal under s. 31(1) of the ODSPA, which constituted an adequate alternative remedy.

The applicant failed to identify any exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the statutory appeal process to pursue judicial review.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a motion judge's order fixing the amount required to discharge a lien registered against the respondent's unit for legal costs incurred in obtaining a compliance order.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred in law by failing to explain how she calculated the 'additional actual costs' under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act.

However, because the appellant deliberately chose not to tender evidence of its actual legal costs on the motion, the court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal and limited the appellant's recovery to the original $10,000 costs award, ordering the lien discharged.

The appellant appealed a preliminary decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which held that it lacked jurisdiction to declare a provision of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Appeal and Review Boards Act constitutionally invalid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 6(3) of the Act explicitly removes the Board's jurisdiction to inquire into or decide the constitutional validity of an Act or regulation.

However, the Court clarified that the Board retains jurisdiction to consider whether the application of the statutory regime or the respondent's policies infringe the appellant's Charter rights.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging the vires of Ontario Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act, arguing that its provisions regarding out-of-country medical treatment contravened the Canada Health Act.

The applicant abandoned any constitutional or Charter challenges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, following the precedent in Collett v. Ontario (Attorney General).

The court held that the consequence of failing to satisfy the Canada Health Act criteria is a matter of intergovernmental consultation and within the discretion of the Governor in Council, rendering the issue non-justiciable and the challenge premature.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its claim for damages in negligence or breach of contract resulting from commercial carpet cleaning.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge's refusal to draw inferences of negligence from circumstantial evidence was open to him and did not constitute a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination complaints as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had fabricated letters from co-workers to support her claims and lacked credibility.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, well within its power to control its own process, and protected by a highly deferential standard of review.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that the applicant must follow the established legislative process and exhaust alternative remedies before seeking judicial review.

The application was quashed without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a new application for judicial review against the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board within sixty days.

The plaintiff farmer raised wild boars and was told by the defendant City to remove them or face charges under an exotic animal by-law.

The plaintiff removed the boars, suffering financial loss, and was subsequently charged, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The plaintiff sued the City in negligence, arguing it failed to consider whether his operation was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from municipal by-laws under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

The City appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the negligence claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the City did not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to the plaintiff.