Frances P. Kiteley

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay child support based on an imputed income of $75,000 and dismissing his claim for equalization of net family property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The trial judge's decision to impute income was justified by the appellant's deliberate failure to make financial disclosure, intentional underemployment, and manipulation of documents.

The dismissal of the equalization claim was upheld based on the trial judge's finding that the parties had already settled property division in 2011.

The appellant appealed an order made at a settlement conference which found her claim for equalization of net family property to be statute-barred.

The respondent conceded that the settlement conference judge lacked jurisdiction to make that order, but argued it was justified under the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that while judges can make orders at settlement conferences to promote fairness, notice must be given.

Since no notice was given regarding the limitation period issue, the appeal was granted and the order was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a single member of the Law Society Tribunal, Appeal Division, which struck his appeal book for including fresh evidence without leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, emphasizing that courts should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant was directed to exhaust his internal remedies by bringing a motion to admit fresh evidence before the panel hearing his appeal.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment, and ordering them to pay $200,000 to the respondent.

The applicants argued the Vice-Chair's approach to credibility was unreasonable and procedurally unfair, particularly regarding the respondent's memory issues and the use of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Vice-Chair's credibility assessments were reasonable, did not improperly rely on oath-helping, and did not subject the applicant's evidence to unequal scrutiny.

The tenant brought a motion to stay an eviction order pending its appeal of a decision finding it failed to validly exercise its option to renew a commercial lease.

The court first determined that the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court, and transferred the appeal.

Sitting as a Superior Court judge, the court then applied the RJR-MacDonald test and granted the stay, finding the appeal raised a serious issue, the tenant would suffer irreparable harm to its business if evicted, and the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal setting aside a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the respondent's horse racing licence.

The Registrar had proposed revocation after discovering the respondent's criminal convictions for selling regulated chemicals and his failure to accurately disclose them on his renewal application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised by the Registrar were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under the governing statute.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and within the range of acceptable outcomes based on the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Law Society of Ontario's decision to close his complaint file against a lawyer who had represented the opposing party in a previous Small Claims Court action.

The Law Society closed the file because the applicant failed to disclose any allegations of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant still had not identified any conduct by the lawyer that could be the subject of an investigation, rendering the Law Society's decision reasonable.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the revocation of its Class 1 Transfer Service licence.

The revocation followed an incident where the appellant directed a contractor to transport human remains in an inappropriate and undignified manner.

The tribunal found that the appellant's day-to-day operations were managed by an unlicenced individual, contrary to regulations, and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant pharmacist appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct, including improper solicitation and misusing confidential patient information, and imposed a twelve-month suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on liability, finding no error in the Committee's credibility assessments or application of the burden of proof.

However, the Court allowed the penalty appeal in part, finding the Committee erred in law by treating the appellant's exercise of his right to a hearing as an aggravating factor.

The suspension was reduced from twelve to ten months.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, and revoking his license.

The Divisional Court upheld findings that he removed patients' clothing without warning and breached a chaperone order.

However, the Court quashed the finding of sexual abuse regarding Patient B due to a flawed credibility assessment and a reversal of the burden of proof.

The Court also quashed a finding of professional misconduct regarding abdominal contact with two other patients because it was an unpleaded allegation.

Finally, the Court held that the mandatory revocation provisions of the Protecting Patients Act, 2017 did not apply retrospectively.

The penalty was substituted with a suspension for the period already served.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions in a family law proceeding.

The court reviewed the continuation of a temporary spousal support order for a personal care assistant (PCA) and decided on two Form 14B motions for leave to bring further motions.

The Respondent sought leave to compel production of the Applicant's entire medical file, which was denied due to disproportionality and lack of necessity.

The Applicant sought leave for several reliefs, including striking affidavits, a restraining order, and interim disbursements.

The court dismissed most of the Applicant's requests for leave but granted leave for a motion for interim costs, recognizing the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs and the need to "level the playing field." The court also clarified its ongoing case management role.

The appellant physician appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of sexual abuse and unprofessional conduct regarding two patients and ordered the revocation of his licence, as well as requiring him to post security for patient counselling.

The Divisional Court upheld the liability findings, concluding the Committee's credibility assessments were reasonable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the Committee erred in principle by failing to balance all sentencing criteria, ignoring proportionality, and incorrectly applying retrospective legislation.

The penalty of revocation was set aside and remitted to the Committee.

The order for security for counselling was varied to apply only to the patient who demonstrated a need for it.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy based on the landlords' requirement of the unit for their son's use.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the appeal raised no questions of law, challenged findings of mixed fact and law regarding good faith and relief from eviction, and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The court concluded the appeal was an attempt to delay the eviction and ordered the tenant to vacate the unit.

The applicant employee was terminated for theft of time.

His union grieved the termination, but the arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The union did not seek judicial review.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review on his own behalf.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the general rule of union exclusivity applied.

Although the collective agreement gave the employee the right to pursue arbitration independently, he did not exercise that right, and therefore could not claim standing under the exceptional circumstances doctrine.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his complaints of discrimination and reprisal against the Middlesex-London Health Unit.

The complaints arose from a student practicum and a subsequent unsuccessful job application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions reasonable and rejecting the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, bias, and Charter violations.

The court held that the Tribunal properly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the legal tests for discrimination and reprisal.

The moving party landlord brought a motion to quash the respondent tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order due to delay and failure to pay rent for 20 months.

The tenant had recently perfected the appeal but claimed he did not receive notice of the motion to quash.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal for delay since it was now perfected.

However, given the admitted 20 months of rent arrears, the court ordered the tenant to pay $5,000 to the landlord as a condition of proceeding with the appeal.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board and brought a motion to be restored to possession of the rental unit after the landlord had already taken possession.

The court treated the motion as a request for an interlocutory injunction.

The court found the tenant could not establish a 'serious issue to be tried' because he had abandoned both the original hearing and the review hearing.

Furthermore, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to restore possession in the face of a lawful eviction order enforced before the appeal and stay order were issued.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claims against his former law partner and an accountant following the dissolution of their partnership.

The appellant alleged his former partner breached the dissolution agreement and colluded with the accountant to deprive him of his share of assets.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of palpable and overriding error and found that the Deputy Judge's factual findings, which preferred the respondents' evidence, were fully supported by the record.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming a compliance order that required the applicant to pay overtime to employees at its centralized sweet corn processing facility.

The Board had found that the facility was not a 'farm' and the work was not 'directly related to primary production' under the farm worker exemption in Regulation 285/01.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was unreasonable because it disregarded uncontradicted expert and operational evidence, adopted an arbitrary interpretation that created absurd results, and failed to properly balance the protective purpose of the exemption.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the court declared that the farm worker exemption applied to the employees.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for rent arrears.

The court found the tenant's grounds of appeal were devoid of merit as they did not raise questions of law.

However, noting the tenant's long-term tenancy and recent financial recovery, the court exercised its discretion to not immediately quash the appeal, instead imposing strict conditions requiring the payment of arrears in installments and ongoing rent.

If the conditions are met, the eviction orders will be set aside; if breached, the appeal will be dismissed and eviction will proceed.