George W. King

The applicant, operator of Sunset Manor long-term care home, sought judicial review of a Director's decision ordering the home to cease admitting new residents due to a risk of harm.

The applicant argued the decision was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because one of the inspectors was a former employee, that it was denied procedural fairness, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, that the procedural fairness owed was met, and that the Director's decision was reasonable and justified based on a history of non-compliance.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his claim for enhanced attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's findings that the appellant could not claim retroactive benefits without a valid reason for delay and that the definition of 'incurred' under the New Schedule applied procedurally to his claim.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the 2% per month interest rate on overdue benefits under the Old Schedule applied as a substantive benefit, rather than the 1% rate under the New Schedule.

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement to clarify its previous decision overturning a trial judge's parenting order.

The parties sought clarification on whether the trial order or a prior interim order governed the father's parenting time.

The court confirmed that because the trial order was set aside, the interim parenting order from September 22, 2015, continues in effect until a new order is agreed upon or imposed.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found that the two appellant corporations operated as a single business and were common employers of the respondent.

The appellants argued there was insufficient evidence of common control, the action against one corporation was statute-barred, and the trial judge erred in awarding substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49 by failing to deduct hypothetical tax consequences from the damages award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the common employer finding, the addition of the second corporation was a valid correction of a misnomer, and Rule 49 comparisons must be based on the actual quantum of damages awarded rather than net tax consequences.

The appellant appealed an order discharging a Claim for Lien and vacating a Certificate of Action registered against a property.

The motions judge had found that the appellant was a partner in the property development, making him an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act rather than a 'contractor', and therefore ineligible to register a lien against his own property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for partnership and relied on relevant evidence.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the respondent hospitals' decision not to renew his hospital privileges.

The non-renewal was based on a long-standing pattern of disruptive behaviour and an inability to maintain collegial relationships with colleagues and staff, which jeopardized patient safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the HPARB's conclusion that the appellant's conduct led to a complete breakdown of trust and confidence.

The court also dismissed the appellant's late motions to amend his notice of appeal and adduce fresh evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal, which sought damages for intentional infliction of mental distress and moral damages based on the same factual matrix, barred the human rights application.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decision, finding it was reasonable to conclude that the civil claim essentially sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements despite not explicitly pleading the Code.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded her only $1,897.89 on a claim of over $880,000 against the respondent, who was a guarantor of a second mortgage.

The appellant sought to add various payments she allegedly made for repairs, renovations, and to keep a first mortgage in good standing to the principal of the second mortgage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings and no errors of law in rejecting the appellant's claims, including her late assertion of equitable subrogation.

The cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's decision to award no costs was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding $10,000 in defamation damages to the respondent seniors' residence.

The appellant had published an article on his blog alleging financial irregularities, fraud, and elder abuse at the residence.

The trial judge found the statements about elder abuse were defamatory and not protected by the defences of justification, fair comment, or responsible communication on a matter of public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the defamation defences.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that partially dismissed his claims of discrimination in the hiring process for a law firm associate position.

The HRTO had found age discrimination, racial discrimination, and reprisal by the respondents, but dismissed other allegations.

On judicial review, the applicant argued the HRTO Vice-Chair breached procedural fairness, misapprehended evidence, and committed errors of law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's process was fair, free of bias, and its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal, the responding parties sought costs pursuant to a consent order.

The Divisional Court awarded the responding parties costs in the amount of $7,500, all inclusive, for the appeal and motion for leave to appeal.

The applicant, a community development corporation, brought an application for a declaration that it is a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and therefore exempt from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)(9) of the Assessment Act.

The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, including ejusdem generis, and found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a local board.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant veterinarian appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding he engaged in professional misconduct by dispensing and reselling veterinary drugs to pharmacies in large quantities, contrary to s. 33(2)(d) of the General Regulation under the Veterinarians Act.

The appellant challenged the validity of the regulation, arguing it was ultra vires, vague, overbroad, and improperly enacted without procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the regulation was validly enacted within the College's statutory authority and that the terms 'reasonably limited quantities' and 'temporary shortage' were not unconstitutionally vague.

The court upheld the finding of professional misconduct and the penalty of a one-month suspension, public reprimand, and costs, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee to suspend his certificate of registration on an interim basis.

The suspension followed complaints that the applicant failed to wear a mask during patient examinations, in breach of an undertaking he had signed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's process was procedurally fair and its decision to impose an interim suspension was reasonable given the risk of harm to patients and the applicant's ungovernability.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding her application for Income Replacement Benefits was statute-barred.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the insurer's denial letter was valid and by refusing to extend the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests and that the appellant's challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings and exercise of discretion did not raise extricable questions of law.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs outlines, no costs were ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $2,321.02 to the responding party.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision denying her request to relocate with her child from Waterloo to Michigan to live with her fiancé.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and admitted fresh evidence of emails demonstrating the respondent father's emotionally abusive and controlling behaviour.

The court found the trial judge erred in principle by failing to apply established mobility jurisprudence, over-emphasizing the maximum contact principle, failing to respect the custodial parent's views, treating the status quo as a default, and placing the mother in a classic double bind.

The appeal was allowed, and the mother was granted permission to relocate with the child.

The landlord served the tenants with a notice of termination for a purchaser's own use.

The tenants exercised their statutory right not to vacate, prompting the landlord to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for an eviction order.

The parties settled the matter at the LTB, agreeing to a termination date and compensation.

The landlord subsequently sued the tenants in Small Claims Court for damages caused by the delayed closing of the property sale, and the deputy judge awarded damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the Small Claims Court decision, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act provides a complete code for evictions, the tenants had no obligation to notify the landlord of their intent to dispute the notice, and the LTB settlement resolved all issues arising from the tenancy.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her motion to change a previous order regarding custody, access, and residence, and ordering her to pay $540 per month in child support for two children.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no material change in circumstances to justify varying the custody order, noting the children's ages and expressed wishes.

The court also held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's findings regarding her income and the dependency status of one of the children.

The appeal was dismissed.