James C. Kent

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent university sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent university fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the application served no public benefit, was based on voluminous materials, and was presented in a laborious manner that added significantly to the university's costs.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to revoke a real estate broker's registration, instead imposing conditions.

The broker had been involved in transactions where properties were flipped at inflated prices, facilitating mortgage fraud, though the Tribunal found he lacked actual knowledge of the fraud.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably assessed the broker's past conduct, including mitigating factors, and appropriately applied the balance of probabilities standard.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof and failed to properly apply the statutory test for registration entitlement.

The applicant, a university instructor, sought judicial review of an investigator's report and the university's subsequent determination dismissing her workplace harassment and discrimination complaint against a colleague.

The parties had previously agreed to bypass the collective agreement's formal inquiry panel process in favour of a private investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the customized, private process lacked the requisite public character to be amenable to judicial review, and also dismissed a motion to set aside a single judge's order striking the applicant's affidavit for containing inadmissible evidence.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the administrators of a message board and several anonymous John Doe defendants.

The plaintiff successfully moved for an order requiring the administrators to disclose the e-mail and IP addresses of the anonymous defendants.

The administrators appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that where a disclosure order engages Charter values such as freedom of expression and privacy, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of defamation and the court must balance the public interest in disclosure against these Charter rights.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an Agreement to Lease was a valid and binding contract and that he was in breach for failing to commence tenant improvements.

The appellant argued that the respondent repudiated the agreement by insisting on a draft lease with terms significantly different from the Agreement to Lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that the disputed terms in the draft lease were incompatible with the financial principles of the Agreement to Lease, and therefore the agreement remained enforceable when the respondent terminated it due to the appellant's default.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding the interpretation of s. 28(1) of Regulation 470 to the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, which requires a funeral establishment's corporate name to be 'clearly disclosed to the public' on business signs.

The Tribunal had found that a large discrepancy in font size between the business name and the corporate name meant the corporate name was not clearly disclosed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal erred in law by focusing on relative font size rather than whether the corporate name was readable from the vantage point from which the sign was intended to be read.

The matter was remitted to the Complaints Committee for reconsideration.

The appellant tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member erred in law by concluding he lacked jurisdiction to award a rent abatement for a cockroach infestation, despite the tenants not specifically requesting it in their original materials.

The court also found the member erred by basing the $1,000 fumigation compensation award on a finding unsupported by evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board to determine the appropriate rent abatement and reasonable fumigation compensation.

The City of Ottawa appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that allowed an official plan amendment proposed by the respondent, which the City Council had previously refused.

The central issue was whether the OMB erred in law by failing to 'have regard to' the Council's decision under s. 2.1 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB is not required to apply a highly deferential standard of review to Council decisions, but must carefully scrutinize and consider them.

Finding that the OMB had properly analyzed and addressed each of the Council's reasons for refusal, the majority dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing her motion to vary child support and declining to impute additional income to the respondent.

She argued the motion judge erred by adjourning the hearing to allow the self-represented respondent to provide further medical evidence regarding his back injury, and by relying on that evidence even though it did not strictly comply with the judge's directions.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or breach of procedural fairness, as the appellant was given the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent or file responding evidence but chose not to do so.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the medical evidence did not meet the motion judge's criteria and its use was unfair.

The appellant appealed an interim order for spousal and child support, arguing the motions judge erred by including $100,000 from a share redemption as income available for support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the Child Support Guidelines to attribute corporate income to a sole shareholder.

The court also admitted fresh evidence that confirmed the availability of the funds, noting any necessary adjustments could be made at the upcoming trial.

The applicant, who has Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability because the government provided residential group homes in his community for adults with cognitive disabilities, but not for medically challenged adults without cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the Commission's investigation or disclosure.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was reasonable, as the comparator group had different needs and the government is permitted to target social programs to specific disadvantaged groups.

The Chief Coroner for Ontario brought a motion to set aside an order requiring him to file a record of proceedings for a judicial review application concerning his refusal to order an inquest into a death.

The Divisional Court held that the Chief Coroner was not exercising a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act when deciding whether to hold an inquest, as he was determining the public interest rather than legal rights or eligibility for benefits.

Consequently, the Chief Coroner was not required to file a record of proceedings, and the motion was granted.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission applied for judicial review of a Commission Panel's decision to exclude a statement made by the respondent licensee during an investigation into illegal drug use in horse racing.

The Panel had excluded the statement on the basis that the investigator wilfully deceived the respondent about his regulatory peril.

The Divisional Court found the Panel's decision unreasonable, as there was no evidentiary basis for the finding of wilful deceit, and quashed the decision, remitting the matter to the Commission for determination on the merits.

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor damages for unpaid invoices.

The trial judge had dismissed the appellant's claims for set-off related to water damage caused by the respondent and a disputed administrative mark-up fee.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by misapprehending uncontradicted evidence that established the respondent's negligence caused the water damage, the quantum of the resulting back-charge, and the respondent's failure to perform the services required to earn the mark-up fee.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing a denial of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by receiving documentary evidence after the formal hearing without affording the tenant an opportunity to respond, and by failing to address this flaw on reconsideration.

The appeal was allowed, and a new hearing was directed before the Board, with instructions to consider new evidence regarding municipal restrictions.

The appellant appealed a tribunal decision finding he was not a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the disability issue, finding the tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no error of law in weighing the medical evidence and prognosis.

However, on consent of the respondent, the matter was remitted to the tribunal for a second hearing to address the appellant's human rights issue.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a written caution issued by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to the applicant's conduct in requiring a female patient to disrobe in front of him without a gown or third party present during an independent medical examination for a fibromyalgia disability claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board and Committee acted reasonably in issuing the caution, which was advisory rather than punitive, and that a two-year delay in the Board's decision did not cause significant prejudice.

The applicant was committed for extradition on a charge of second degree murder after the extradition judge found no evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Minister subsequently ordered the applicant surrendered on the foreign charge of first degree murder, which requires premeditation under Arizona law.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Court of Appeal held that the Minister's decision was unreasonable because there was a total absence of evidence at the committal stage on an essential element of the foreign offence.

The surrender order was quashed and the matter remitted to the Minister.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after choking the victim during consensual sexual activity.

At trial, the appellant admitted culpability for manslaughter but argued he lacked the requisite intent for murder.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the only possible verdicts were second degree murder or manslaughter, removing the option of an acquittal.

On appeal, the appellant argued this violated his right to a jury trial, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of 'reckless' under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly respected the appellant's tactical decision to admit manslaughter, and that the jury instructions on intent, read as a whole, did not constitute reversible error.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for accepting a secret benefit under s. 426(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the offence is established by proof that an agent accepted a secret benefit and placed themselves in a conflict of interest without alerting their principal, regardless of whether the benefit actually influenced their conduct.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in characterizing the offence as a well-planned fraud upon the public purse.

The Court set aside the term of imprisonment and imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, noting the appellant's lack of prior record, full restitution, loss of career, junior role, and cooperation with authorities.