Echlin

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal refusing his application for a mortgage broker licence.

The Tribunal had denied the licence due to the appellant's recent criminal convictions for assault, criminal harassment, and mischief, as well as his false statement on the application that there were no outstanding criminal charges against him.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal's assessment of the appellant's honesty and integrity within the context of the mortgage industry was well-founded.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that permitted the responding party to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one in a heritage conservation district.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised were factual rather than questions of law, lacked general legal importance, and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant, a chiropractor, brought an application to set aside an Assistant Registrar's order that dismissed his appeal of a $128,000 costs award for delay.

The court applied the three-part test for setting aside a dismissal for delay, finding that the appellant had a bona fide continuing intention to appeal and that the delay was inconsequential.

The respondent conceded the merits of the appeal.

The application was granted, and the dismissal order was set aside subject to conditions including the payment of previous costs orders and the perfection of the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award ordering the pre-hearing production of a grievor's psychiatric records from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The applicant argued that under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act, only the Divisional Court could order such production.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the legislation, finding that section 35(5) permits pre-hearing disclosure of mental health records pursuant to a summons or order without requiring a section 35(9) determination, which applies to the admission of evidence at a hearing.

However, the Court found the arbitrator's order was over-broad and amended it to limit the scope of records and require initial disclosure only to the arbitrator to assess relevance and privacy interests.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision that upheld Woodbine Entertainment Group's (WEG) indefinite suspension of his racing privileges.

The suspension followed the discovery of Erythropoetin (EPO) in three of the applicant's horses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably balanced WEG's private property and contractual rights with the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the horse racing industry.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the National CAIS Committee - Ontario Appeals Sub-Committee regarding agricultural stabilization benefits.

The applicant argued the Committee made findings of fact without evidence and that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because a policy advisor to the Administration retired with the Committee during its deliberations.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the presence of the policy advisor during deliberations created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decision was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside an order of a single judge.

The single judge had struck several respondents, documents, an affidavit, and claims for damages from the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge was correct in all respects, as the struck respondents were not proper parties, the struck documents and affidavit were not before the Commission, and the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to award damages on judicial review.