Harriet E. Sachs

The Professional Conduct Committee of the CPAO sought judicial review of an internal Appeal Decision that ordered the readmission of a former accountant whose license was revoked following criminal convictions for fraud.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Appeal Panel failed to conduct a proper reasonableness review of the initial Reconsideration Decision.

Instead of deferring to the Reconsideration Panel's assessment of the applicant's remorse and rehabilitation, the Appeal Panel impermissibly reweighed the evidence.

Furthermore, the Appeal Panel failed to consider whether readmission was consistent with maintaining public trust in the profession.

The Appeal Decision was set aside and the Reconsideration Decision denying readmission was restored.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant's uninsured son was in an accident, and they sought benefits under her brother's spouse's policy, requiring proof of dependency.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT did not breach procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and made no error of law in applying both a 'big picture' and mathematical approach to conclude the appellant was not principally dependent on the named insured.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer subsequently initiated a priority dispute with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund and denied further benefits.

At the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the insurer successfully moved to determine as a preliminary issue whether the appellant was an 'insured person', resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the LAT's decision to proceed with the preliminary issue while the priority dispute was pending constituted an abuse of process, as it undermined the 'pay now, dispute later' statutory scheme designed to ensure continuity of benefits.

The appellant, an independent health facility operator, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister of Health's order to repay nearly $300,000 in facility fees for limited pelvic ultrasounds.

The Board found the appellant improperly billed for these ultrasounds because they were not requested by a referring physician or radiologist and their medical necessity was not adequately documented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly determined its hearing was de novo, the process was procedurally fair, and the appellant failed to meet the statutory documentation requirements for reimbursement.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that a wheel loader was an 'automobile' for the purposes of statutory accident benefits.

At the LAT hearing, both parties conceded that the wheel loader was not an automobile in ordinary parlance, focusing their arguments on the third part of the Adams test.

However, the LAT decided the case based on the first part of the test without seeking further submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LAT breached procedural fairness by rejecting the parties' concession without giving them an opportunity to make full submissions on the issue.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for alleged sexual harassment and age discrimination by an assistant manager at a Goodlife gym.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably interpreted the test for sexual harassment, made unreasonable evidentiary findings, and erred in finding Goodlife met its duty to investigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's credibility assessments, factual findings, and conclusions regarding the duty to investigate were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Braid J. dated October 9, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the interlocutory decision of Akazaki J. dated December 5, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the agreed upon amount of $7,500, all inclusive.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, and leave to appeal, two prior decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not provide costs submissions.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered an intracranial brain contusion.

The insurer placed her in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), limiting her benefits to $3,500.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld this decision, finding that the definition of 'minor injury' includes all contusions, including brain contusions.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal erred in law by focusing on the degree of impairment rather than the nature of the injury.

The court held that an intracranial brain contusion is not a 'minor injury' under the SABS, allowed the appeal, and ordered the appellant removed from the MIG.

The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing to file materials in accordance with the Rules, including seeking leave to file a factum with a larger word count and a reply factum.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment and directed the parties to attend a case conference to establish a timetable for perfecting the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal multiple parenting and costs orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,907.60.

The appellant failed to perfect his appeal and advised the court he would not attend the hearing.

After waiting for the appellant to appear, the respondent landlord requested the matter be dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant failed to perfect his appeal and advised the court he would not attend the hearing.

After waiting for the appellant to appear, the respondent landlord requested the matter be dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision ordering the removal of a dog and finding violations of parking rules.

The appellant argued the CAT misapprehended evidence regarding a service dog exemption and raised new arguments including equitable estoppel and bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the CAT's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence, and declined to entertain arguments not raised before the tribunal.

The appellants' appeal from a decision of the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was adjourned to April 14, 2026, for a half-day hearing, through no fault of the parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision denying his request to reactivate his human rights application.

The application had been deferred pending grievance arbitrations, which were withdrawn in 2018.

The applicant filed his reactivation request over four years later.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit due to the length of the delay, the lack of a reasonable explanation, and prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and noting the applicant was the author of his own misfortune.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision refusing to reconsider its dismissal of his complaint against Meta Platforms Inc. for lack of jurisdiction.

The HRTO had concluded that Meta is a federally regulated undertaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HRTO's jurisdictional decision was correct.

Applying the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity and division of powers principles, the Court confirmed that Meta provides services over the internet, constituting an interprovincial telecommunications undertaking subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.