E.R. Kruzick

The appellant owns a former cruise ship, the Jadran, which operates as a floating restaurant berthed in Lake Ontario.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessed the ship as a 'structure' and the lakebed it occupies as 'land' for taxation purposes.

The appellant appealed the application judge's decision upholding the assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions that the ship is a structure, that it occupies land owned by the Port Authority, and that the appellant is in possession of that land.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision by the City of Brampton's City Council refusing to renew its body rub parlour license.

The applicant argued that City Council breached procedural fairness by not holding a second hearing after the Licensing Committee recommended granting the license.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the Municipal Act, 2001, City Council had only delegated the power to make recommendations to the Licensing Committee, and thus was not required to hold a second hearing.

The court also held that City Council's decision to refuse the license was reasonable given the premises' non-compliance with zoning by-laws and the City's cap on adult entertainment establishments.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to pay table child support and a percentage of section 7 expenses for his adult child attending university.

The father argued that the child attending university constituted a material change in circumstances under their Amending Agreement, and alternatively claimed undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the agreement or her conclusion that the father failed to prove undue hardship.

The court also declined to remit the matter for a full hearing, emphasizing the principle of proportionality in child support variations.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant argued the Board erred in refusing an adjournment and lacked jurisdiction to impose a condition requiring completion of an alcohol withdrawal program.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal to adjourn given the continuing dangerous condition and the tenant's consent order to vacate.

The Court also held the condition issue was moot and, regardless, permitted under s. 204 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Following a successful appeal by the defendant insurer regarding the production of documents and claims of privilege, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The Divisional Court ordered no costs for the appeal, the application for leave to appeal, or the motion to quash.

Although the defendant was substantially successful on the issues of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, the court found that the defendant was largely the author of its own misfortune because its initial affidavit of documents lacked the particularity required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sued his insurer for bad faith after it denied his claim for a dismemberment benefit.

On a motion for production, the motions judge ordered the insurer to produce legal opinions from its counsel and its entire claims file, finding that the bad faith claim overrode solicitor-client privilege and that litigation privilege was not established.

The Divisional Court allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that a bad faith claim does not destroy solicitor-client privilege for legal opinions.

The court also set aside the blanket order for the claims file, directing the insurer to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents properly particularizing its privilege claims.

The Minister of Revenue appealed a trial decision that allowed an automobile dealership to exclude its wholesale financial liabilities for new vehicles from its paid-up capital as 'current accounts payable' under the Corporations Tax Act.

The Minister also appealed the trial judge's award of solicitor and client costs to the dealership.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tax appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the legislation or assessment of expert accounting evidence.

However, the Court allowed the costs appeal, reducing the award to a party and party scale because there was no finding of reprehensible conduct by the Minister to justify solicitor and client costs.