Dragana Rakic

This was a regulatory appeal from a standardbred racing ruling imposing a 10-year suspension and a $40,000 monetary penalty for alleged prohibited-substance related misconduct and misleading inspectors.

Before the appeal was heard, the appellant first withdrew a stay motion and later requested withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

The Panel acknowledged the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

No adjudication on the merits of the underlying ruling was made.

The appellant appealed a standardbred ruling imposing a monetary penalty and requiring repayment of purse monies and trainer fees.

A conditional stay had been granted pending disposition of related motion proceedings, and a subsequent motion for clarification regarding repayment was dismissed.

Before the appeal was adjudicated on the merits, the appellant requested withdrawal and the Registrar consented.

The Panel acknowledged the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that set aside an order immediately suspending the appellant's horse racing licences.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact by fettering its discretion regarding bail conditions and mischaracterizing hearsay evidence, including a court Information and a Crown Brief Synopsis.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors were made.

The Tribunal held that it had properly weighed the unpersuasive hearsay evidence and had not fettered its discretion, but rather declined to exercise it to impose conditions.

The appellant appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension of his horse racing licences issued by the Registrar after he was charged with several criminal offences, including sexual assault involving a minor.

The Registrar argued the suspension was necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in the industry and protect the public.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to meet its onus, as the only evidence of the alleged conduct consisted of unproven charges and hearsay evidence from a police officer who had no first-hand knowledge.

The Tribunal set aside the immediate suspension order.

The appellant lawyer was the subject of a Law Society discipline proceeding that was ultimately dismissed after 56 days of hearing.

He sought costs against the Law Society, which were denied by the Hearing Division and the Appeal Division.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court found that the Law Society's investigation was one-sided and procedurally unfair, and its positions on disclosure were unreasonable.

While the court upheld the finding that the proceeding was warranted at the outset, it set aside the decisions denying costs and remitted the matter to a new panel to determine whether the appellant is entitled to costs wasted by the Law Society's undue delay, negligence, or other default.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,334.37 to the responding party.

The applicant condominium corporation sought judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision regarding an accessible parking dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust its statutory right of appeal under the Condominium Act.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review is not available where an adequate alternative remedy, such as a statutory appeal on questions of law, exists.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent for second-degree murder, arguing the trial judge made errors of law in evaluating evidence, specifically regarding witness testimony, a formal admission about a substance trail, and speculation about blood evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal errors in the trial judge's analysis and reiterating that appellate review on a Crown appeal is limited to questions of law, not the reasonableness of an acquittal or reweighing of evidence.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant broadcaster brought an application for copyright infringement against a political party for using short clips of its news broadcasts and leadership debates in political attack ads and social media posts.

The Court found that the taking constituted a substantial part of the works, but that the use was protected under the fair dealing exception for the purpose of criticism.

The application for declaratory relief was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to review interlocutory rulings and a costs order made by a judge who had previously denied their motion for leave to appeal a Land Planning Appeal Tribunal decision regarding a new hospital site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the interlocutory rulings merged with the final decision denying leave, rendering them moot.

The court held that the proposed review was an abuse of process attempting to collaterally attack a final decision, and that the costs order was well within the motions judge's discretion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief Electoral Officer to refer complaints to the Attorney General as apparent contraventions of the Elections Finances Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision did not affect the legal rights, interests, property, privileges, or liberty of any person.

Applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in PC Ontario Fund, the court held the decision was not susceptible to judicial review and did not engage section 2(b) Charter rights.

The appellant appealed a decision of a Reference Judge upholding the Chief Firearms Officer's refusal to renew his firearms licence.

The refusal was based on three past incidents of alleged domestic violence that resulted in criminal charges, which were ultimately withdrawn but led to two peace bonds.

The appellant argued the Firearms Officer unreasonably relied on unsworn police reports and withdrawn charges.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Firearms Officer reasonably considered the cumulative effect of the incidents and peace bonds in determining that issuing the licence was not in the interests of public safety.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against a physician.

The applicant, an autism advocate, complained about the physician's use of chelation therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the College's investigation was adequate and its decision not to refer the matter to discipline was reasonable, given the lack of patient-specific evidence of harm and the statutory protections for alternative medicine.

The moving party, a residents association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that dismissed its appeals against the City of Windsor's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments facilitated the location of a new regional acute care hospital.

The moving party argued the LPAT erred in law regarding emergency services policies, First Nations consultation, climate change impacts, and the assessment of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's decision on any question of law.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay partial indemnity costs, despite recognizing it as a public interest litigant, because the motion lacked merit and it would be unfair to shift the costs to the municipal taxpayers and the hospital.