David L. Corbett

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement on costs following multiple appeals under the Construction Lien Act.

Noting that the case was litigated without regard for proportionality, the court recognized that the respondent on appeal had no choice but to engage with its meritorious but modest claim.

Costs of all appeals were fixed in the aggregate at $65,000 inclusive, payable to the respondent on appeal from the appellant and recoverable from the lien security.

The applicants sought to quash an order of the Small Claims Court that amended the defendants to include a representative of a trade union.

The applicants argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to make a representation order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Small Claims Court Rules contain a gap regarding representation orders, which the Deputy Judge properly filled by relying on Rule 1.03(2) to apply Rule 12.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision upholding sanctions for research misconduct, which prohibited him from conducting research as a principal investigator, applying for grants, and permanently closed his research laboratory.

The applicant argued the decision failed to consider mitigating factors, including his unblemished record and status as a world-renowned researcher.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable given the systemic and persistent nature of the misconduct over a ten-year period.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for statutory accident benefits by the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator erred by excluding opinion evidence from the appellant's treating family physician and by failing to properly assess the issue of causation.

The court held that the adjudicator's erroneous evidentiary ruling infected the fact-finding process and that the failure to state the proper test for causation rendered the reasons insufficient.

The decisions below were set aside and the matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate that rescinded an Arbitrator's decisions awarding statutory accident benefits, a special award, and expenses.

The Divisional Court found that the Delegate's decisions regarding the special award, the benefits, and the Arbitrator's clarification decision were unreasonable, as the Arbitrator had jurisdiction and provided adequate reasons.

However, the Delegate reasonably found that the Arbitrator erred by awarding legal fees in excess of the maximum limits set out in the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The application for judicial review was granted in part, restoring the Arbitrator's decisions except for the legal costs, which were remitted for recalculation.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the City of Toronto revoking permits for a sign on its property adjacent to Highway 401.

The MTO revoked its permit after determining the sign was a third-party billboard, which is prohibited within 400 metres of a controlled-access highway, rather than a permitted first-party location sign.

Toronto subsequently revoked its municipal permit because a valid MTO permit is a prerequisite.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the MTO's characterization of the sign as a third-party advertisement was reasonable, as the advertised law firm did not genuinely conduct business at the premises.

The court also found the applicant was not denied procedural fairness.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two arbitration decisions regarding the calculation of payouts for unused sick days upon retirement.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement required rounding up years of service for teachers with more than X.500 years, and prohibited rounding down for those with less.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and rejection of the board's past practice and estoppel arguments to be reasonable.

The tenant, who suffers from mental illness, appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board failed to accommodate the tenant's disability by refusing to grant a second adjournment, which prevented her from fully and fairly participating in the process.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

A case management conference was held which the plaintiff, Nadire Atas, failed to attend.

The plaintiff had previously been ordered to make Chavali requests to advance her litigation against Sutton Group and related parties but failed to do so.

The court found that the plaintiff had abandoned her litigation by conduct and breached multiple court orders.

Consequently, the court dismissed all claims against the defendants, awarding costs to one self-represented defendant who participated in the case management process.

A case management conference was held regarding the respondent's failure to follow court orders in connection with her pending appeal of a contempt judgment.

The respondent did not attend the conference.

The court found that the respondent breached a previous order directing her to inquire about the status of transcripts required for her appeal and to provide the correspondence to the court.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the previous directions by November 15, 2019, and to explain her non-compliance, warning that failure to do so could result in further contempt proceedings.

A case management conference was held regarding four defamation actions against the defendant, who failed to attend.

The defendant had previously failed to deliver motion materials for a stay and responding materials for summary judgment motions.

The court noted the defendant in default in one of the actions for failing to file a statement of defence as ordered.

Directions and deadlines were set for the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and default judgment.

Greenpeace Canada brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration that the Ontario government unlawfully cancelled the cap and trade program without following the public consultation requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR).

The Minister had claimed an exemption under the EBR, arguing that the recent general election was a substantially equivalent process of public participation.

The Divisional Court found that the election was not substantially equivalent and the government failed to comply with the EBR.

However, the application was dismissed because the government subsequently passed valid legislation repealing the cap and trade program and barring proceedings, rendering the requested declaratory relief of no practical effect.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order finding her child in need of protection and placing the child in extended society care without access.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding there were no material facts in dispute regarding the mother's parenting capabilities and exposure to domestic violence.

The Court also noted that the motion judge applied an outdated test for access, which was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.

The judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for an expedited trial.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Registrar's decision to disqualify them from the cannabis retail store lottery process for failing to provide original copies of a standby letter of credit by the specified deadline.

The applicants argued the disqualification was unreasonable, the lottery rules were ultra vires, and they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar's decision was reasonable given the applicants' failure to provide functional contact information and their failure to meet the clear deadline.

The Court also held the rules requiring a letter of credit and permitting its drawdown were intra vires, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The self-represented applicants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision made over six years prior.

The court dismissed the application on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01, noting that the applicants failed to exhaust their statutory appeal rights under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court held that judicial review is not available where an adequate alternative remedy exists, and directed the applicants to bring a motion for an extension of time to appeal if they wished to challenge the decision.

The applicant, a survivor of institutional child abuse with a traumatic brain injury and PTSD, applied for admission to the University of Waterloo.

The university rejected his application based on poor grades he had obtained 13 years earlier at another institution, before his disabilities were diagnosed and accommodated.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the university had fulfilled its duty to accommodate.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court set aside the HRTO's decision, holding that the university discriminated against the applicant by relying on unaccommodated grades and failed to establish that assessing his application without those grades would cause undue hardship.

The appellant sought to appeal a costs order made under the Construction Lien Act independent of the merits of the judgment.

The court held that pursuant to section 67(3) of the Construction Lien Act, the requirement to obtain leave to appeal costs under section 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act applies.

As the appellant did not seek or obtain leave, the appeal was quashed.

Sentencing decision arising from historic sexual offences against four child victims, including prolonged abuse of one complainant and school-based abuse of others while the offender was a teacher.

The court held that denunciation, specific deterrence, abuse of trust, the youth of the victims, and significant victim impact required a penitentiary sentence notwithstanding medical and religious accommodation arguments.

The court accepted limited credit for restrictive bail conditions under Downes, fixed total credit at three months, and imposed a net sentence of five years.

Ancillary orders including lifetime SOIRA, lifetime s. 161 prohibition, DNA, non-contact, and weapons prohibition were granted, and the sentence was ordered consecutive to an earlier child pornography sentence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal setting aside a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the respondent's horse racing licence.

The Registrar had proposed revocation after discovering the respondent's criminal convictions for selling regulated chemicals and his failure to accurately disclose them on his renewal application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised by the Registrar were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under the governing statute.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and within the range of acceptable outcomes based on the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Law Society of Ontario's decision to close his complaint file against a lawyer who had represented the opposing party in a previous Small Claims Court action.

The Law Society closed the file because the applicant failed to disclose any allegations of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant still had not identified any conduct by the lawyer that could be the subject of an investigation, rendering the Law Society's decision reasonable.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.