David M. Brown

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision that dismissed parts of her appeal regarding a municipal Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy.

Specifically, the applicant failed to request a review or rehearing under section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, which provides a statutory mechanism to address her claims of procedural unfairness.

The court noted that allowing the judicial review would undermine the legislative scheme, which requires leave to appeal Board decisions.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel revoking his license to practice law after he was found to be ungovernable.

The appellant argued that the panels misapprehended evidence regarding his remorse, character, discipline history, and a proposed supervision plan, and failed to consider systemic racism.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the disciplinary panels' decisions were reasonable, entitled to deference, and that the appellant failed to establish a causal connection between his race and the professional misconduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for delay.

The applicant's late husband was denied a liver transplant due to a policy requiring six months of abstinence from alcohol.

The applicant filed her human rights complaint almost two years later, arguing she did not know the policy was discriminatory until then.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that ignorance of the law does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The appellant building mortgagee appealed an order confirming a Master's report in a construction lien priority dispute.

The Master found that the appellant's $25,000 mortgage advance was made on November 19, 2009, giving the respondent lien claimant priority, based on a formal admission of fact that the appellant was refused leave to withdraw.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied the standard of review and that the formal admission of fact was conclusive.

The applicant lawyer commenced a Small Claims Court action against a former client for unpaid fees.

After failing to comply with a production order requiring documents to be organized chronologically, the Deputy Judge ordered the applicant to pay $2,000 in costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interlocutory costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that it was essentially an appeal by a different name and that the Deputy Judge had jurisdiction to impose costs for litigation misconduct without breaching natural justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that declared pre-access alcohol and drug testing, implemented in response to Suncor's site access requirements, violated the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Irving Pulp & Paper.

The court found the arbitrator reasonably concluded there was no evidence of a substance abuse problem at the Sarnia worksite to justify the privacy intrusion of pre-access testing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.

A previous order had imposed a penalty, suspended it on conditions, and specified that the penalty would take effect immediately if the conditions were breached.

When the appellant breached the conditions, the Committee imposed a harsher 15-month suspension instead of the prescribed penalty.

The Divisional Court found this unreasonable, as the breach was specifically contemplated by the previous order.

The appeal was allowed, and the original penalty was ordered to be enforced.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that ordered her to repay a $209,912 lump sum to her former employer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant breached the confidentiality provision of a grievance settlement agreement by referencing the payment in a self-published book.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing because the union had not failed in its duty of fair representation.

Furthermore, the court held that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the repayment provision was a valid forfeiture clause, not an unconscionable penalty, and that the applicant had clearly breached the confidentiality terms.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application for arrears of rent related to an air conditioning charge.

The LTB Member had relied on a previous decision involving the same landlord but a different tenant to find the charge invalid.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Member erred in applying issue estoppel because the parties and the specific issues were different.

The matter was remitted back to the LTB for a re-hearing before a different Member.

The appellant, an occupant of a residential unit, appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating the tenancy.

The Board had accepted the consent of the named tenant to terminate the tenancy, finding that the appellant was not a party to the application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board committed a reversible error of law by denying the appellant procedural fairness.

Under section 187(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, the appellant was a person directly affected by the application and should have been accorded party status.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child support, section 7 expenses, net family property, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the majority of the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's decisions not to impute income, to cap figure skating expenses at $10,000 per year, and to limit the life insurance obligation to age 18.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the issue of trial costs, awarding the appellant $7,500 because her offer to settle was more favourable than the trial result.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Social Benefits Tribunal decisions regarding Ontario Works overpayments and cancellation of assistance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had already appealed one decision unsuccessfully, had prior civil actions regarding the other decisions dismissed, failed to pursue her statutory right of appeal within the required time, and raised questions of fact rather than law.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order requiring him to post $30,000 in security for costs in his action for assault and false arrest against retail security guards.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to address whether the action was 'frivolous and vexatious' under Rule 56.01(1)(e).

Given the conflicting evidence regarding the degree of force used during the arrest, the court concluded there was no good reason to believe the action was frivolous and vexatious.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding he did not meet the definition of a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misapprehending new medical evidence filed before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal correctly weighed the new evidence, determining it was either inconsistent with earlier reports or reflected a deterioration in condition after the Director's decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal committee decision upholding the designation of his two dogs as 'Dangerous Dogs' after they were involved in an incident that resulted in the death of another dog.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness and that the committee erred in its interpretation of the by-law because it could not determine which specific dog caused the fatal injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the hearing was procedurally fair and that the committee's decision to designate both dogs was reasonable given their joint involvement in the attack.

The appellant, a licensed electrical contractor, appealed a decision of the review panel of the Electrical Safety Authority confirming a defect notice.

The notice was issued after the appellant disconnected and reconnected an electrical panel without authorization, allegedly violating rule 2-012 of the Ontario Electrical Safety Code.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness and found the review panel's broad interpretation of the rule—requiring authorization for all disconnections regardless of method or reason—was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her application to set aside a judgment related to a mortgage default and power of sale, claiming damages of $98,000.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction, as its jurisdiction is limited to claims of not more than $50,000 under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal, noting the appeal lacked merit and the appellant had taken no steps to transfer it despite notice.

The appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the appellant seeking to have it heard in the Court of Appeal.

The appellant commenced a Small Claims Court action for goods sold and delivered.

The respondent counterclaimed and later commenced a Superior Court action for a higher amount, successfully moving to transfer the Small Claims Court proceedings to the Superior Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred by failing to consider whether the issues were capable of being justly resolved in the Small Claims Court, as required by the Vigna test.

The transfer order was set aside, allowing the Small Claims Court action to proceed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of a motions judge who had adjourned their summary judgment motion and given directions for further evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as premature.

The court held that appealing an intra-motion ruling before the summary judgment motion is finally disposed of offends the principle of continuity in judicial touch established in Hryniak and the goal of timely and cost-effective proceedings under Rule 1.04(1).

The landlord moved to quash the tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenants for persistently failing to pay rent.

The landlord claimed $11,200 in outstanding rent, while the Board advised that the tenants had paid $5,600 into the Board for a separate application.

The court found that the appeal was not clearly devoid of merit on the limited materials provided.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash on strict terms, ordering the tenants to pay $5,600 in arrears and $1,600 in ongoing monthly rent, failing which the landlord could move without notice to dismiss the appeal and lift the stay.