Ground J.

The applicant tenant sought judicial review to quash a preliminary decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which found it had jurisdiction to hear the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy for refusing entry to upgrade fire alarms.

The applicant argued the Tribunal lost jurisdiction due to issue estoppel from a 1996 consent judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that courts will not interfere with ongoing tribunal proceedings or preliminary rulings unless the tribunal never had jurisdiction or irretrievably lost it, which was not the case here.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Social Benefits Tribunal decision denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by overlooking medical evidence and his inability to function in the workplace.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal correctly interpreted the legislation, properly considered the medical evidence, and made credibility findings that supported its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a person with a disability.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by overlooking medical evidence and making findings of fact without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal correctly interpreted the legislation, properly considered the medical evidence, and made credibility findings that supported its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a person with a disability.

The tenants appealed a decision regarding a rent decrease related to property taxes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants' constitutional issue due to lack of an evidentiary record and failure to provide proper notice to the Minister of Justice under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the Tribunal erred in initially dismissing the landlord's application based on a delay in filing evidence, as the delay was caused by the City and did not prejudice the tenants.

The Law Society swore a complaint against the appellant solicitor containing eight counts of alleged misconduct.

A panel of the Discipline Committee dismissed two counts under the old Law Society Act, which did not allow for costs unless proceedings were unwarranted.

A second panel later stayed the remaining counts.

By then, a new Act was in effect, allowing the hearing panel to award costs.

The second panel and the Appeal Panel held that the old Act applied because a hearing had commenced.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that 'hearing' refers to the substantive hearing on the merits, which had not commenced for the remaining counts.

The matter was remitted for a determination of costs under the new Act.