Harriet E. Sachs

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying a special award on housing benefits.

The insurer had unreasonably delayed and withheld benefits but agreed to pay the full amount claimed shortly before the hearing.

The LAT Adjudicator granted a special award on most benefits but denied it for housing benefits because no report on the value of renovations to the existing home was provided under s. 16(4)(c) of the SABS.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by interpreting s. 10 to require an adjudication of the amount of the benefit when the insurer had already agreed to pay the claimed amount.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment designation and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to make a special award for benefits the insurer had delayed but ultimately agreed to pay before the hearing.

The Court also held the LAT breached procedural fairness by admitting and relying on the report of the insurer's psychiatric expert, who refused to attend the hearing for cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

The moving parties, Joseph A. John and Intact Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Michael T. Doi dated April 16, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Centa J. dated May 29, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The responding party was granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

However, the motions for leave to appeal the decision of Trimble J., brought by both the moving party and the responding party, were dismissed without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,972.66.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as no costs outline was filed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as unnecessary, finding that leave was not required.

The court directed the moving party to deliver a notice of appeal for a hearing to be scheduled after case management.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal because the moving party failed to file the necessary material.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $1,812.50.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Senate Appeals Committee, which upheld his withdrawal from a Masters program for failing to complete his thesis within the maximum allowable time.

The applicant argued the committee failed to accommodate his disability, excluded relevant evidence, and unreasonably denied him a further extension or the right to re-apply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the committee lacked jurisdiction over discrimination claims, reasonably excluded irrelevant evidence, and made reasonable factual findings that the applicant was unlikely to complete his thesis even with an extension.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of R. Smith J. dated June 26, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Transportation's decisions to request a medical examination and subsequently suspend his driver's licence, as well as the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Minister's actions were prompted by a police report raising concerns about the applicant's hearing and vision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the LAT reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Highway Traffic Act to hear the appeal.

The Court also held that the Minister's decisions were reasonable, procedurally fair, and did not violate the applicant's Charter rights.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review regarding the Law Society of Ontario's failure to accommodate him during the barrister examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the applicant had not exhausted his opportunities to re-write the examination.

The court emphasized that judicial interference in administrative proceedings should be avoided until the process has run its course, especially since the Law Society had subsequently put the requested accommodations in place for a re-write.

The appellant sought an appeal and judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits under the 'any occupation' test and denying an extension of time to request reconsideration.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law or procedural unfairness in the adjudicator's handling of expert evidence, cross-examination, or factual findings.

The court held the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal and judicial review application.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board Review Order that dismissed their motion to void an eviction order.

The tenants argued the eviction order expired because it was not filed with the Sheriff within six months under s. 81 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the six-month period was stayed under s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act while the tenants' previous appeal was pending.

The landlord's cross-appeal was allowed, as the Board erred in law by automatically returning rent monies held in trust to the tenants without considering its discretion to waive the applicable rule in the interests of fairness.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test for causation regarding her psychological and behavioural impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator correctly applied the legal test for causation and that her conclusions were factual findings supported by the evidence.

The court also upheld the adjudicator's finding that the appellant failed to prove a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated June 13, 2024.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.