F. Kristjanson

The applicant private schools sought judicial review of Ontario's decision to allocate the federal 'Safe Return to Class Fund' exclusively to public schools.

Ontario raised preliminary issues of timeliness and justiciability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the expenditure of public funds is a discretionary public policy decision made pursuant to the Crown's common law spending powers.

The court found that the funding allocation was a core policy choice and therefore not justiciable absent jurisdictional error, a constitutional challenge, bad faith, or irrationality, none of which were established.

The applicant sought judicial review of a police service's decision to disclose non-conviction information on a vulnerable sector check.

The applicant argued the reconsideration process was procedurally unfair because the police did not disclose the underlying information relied upon to make the decision, preventing the applicant from knowing the case to meet.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that procedural fairness required the police to provide access to the relevant information before the applicant submitted written submissions for the reconsideration.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter for a new reconsideration by a different decision-maker.

The appellants, a religious organization, appealed a decision denying property tax exemptions for certain properties under the Assessment Act.

The properties included portions of a temple site and several satellite sites used for Tai Chi classes.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the primary purpose of the satellite sites was not worship, but rather evangelization or physical health, and that the specific temple areas (sales area, campground, contemplative garden) did not qualify as places of worship.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included a guilty plea related to OHIP billing, clinical and record-keeping deficiencies, and misleading the College regarding a vaccine administration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was irremediable given his extensive 18-year disciplinary history.

The court held that the penalty of revocation was proportionate and not clearly unfit.

The applicant sought leave to appeal regarding the scheduling and hearing of a recusal motion and outstanding motions by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and permitted the appeal to be heard in Toronto or another region to secure an earlier date.

Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a co-owned rental property pursuant to the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by refusing an adjournment, disregarding his right of first refusal under a co-ownership agreement, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the majority of the appeal, finding no error in the refusal of the adjournment and concluding the right of first refusal did not apply because the parties had already agreed to sell the property.

The appeal was allowed only to correct a minor error in the order regarding the holding of net proceeds in trust.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed her claims for unjust enrichment and a joint family venture arising from her involvement in the respondent's dog grooming business during their common-law relationship.

The trial judge had found the appellant exaggerated her involvement and was adequately compensated.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that her trial counsel provided inadequate representation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to impute an annual income of $130,000 to him for the purpose of calculating spousal support.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by relying solely on previous earnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge considered multiple factors including age, education, skills, and local job market rates.

The court also dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence of the appellant's post-hearing employment, noting the proper procedure for changed circumstances is a new motion to change.