James A. Ramsay

The applicant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, had his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits suspended and later cancelled by the Director for failing to provide requested information.

The Social Benefits Tribunal rescinded both decisions, finding the Director failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.

When the Director failed to reinstate the benefits, the applicant sought an order of mandamus.

The Divisional Court granted declarations that the Director breached his public duty by failing to reinstate the benefits, but declined to issue mandamus for the payment of arrears, finding that retroactive payments were within the Director's discretion and that the applicant had an alternative remedy through a civil action.

The appellant filed an appeal from a final order concerning child custody and access.

After five months, the appellant had made no progress in perfecting the appeal, including failing to order transcripts, citing denial of Legal Aid and difficulty securing pro bono counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal due to the lack of progress, the need for stability for the children, and the uninspiring nature of the grounds of appeal, noting Legal Aid's decision not to intervene.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant lawyer sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which had overturned a Hearing Division decision and ordered her interlocutory suspension pending a conduct application.

The Law Society alleged the applicant was involved in the misuse of trust funds and had facilitated the practice of law by her suspended former partner, with whom she had resumed a romantic relationship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeal Division reasonably concluded the Hearing Division had misapprehended evidence amounting to an error of law, and that the interlocutory suspension was necessary to protect the public interest.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside an order quashing their application for judicial review of the Minister's decision to apply an Interim Enforcement Policy to certain First Nations regarding hunting and fishing rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, upholding the motions judge's finding that the Minister's decision was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and therefore not justiciable absent an abuse of process.

The Court also agreed that the applicant's section 15 Charter claim was bound to fail as the policy did not alter his rights or impose a burden based on race.

Furthermore, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act because the policy was not an exercise of a statutory power.

In an international custody dispute, the mother sought custody in Ontario after removing the child from Egypt without the father’s consent, while the father moved to stay the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held the child was habitually resident in Egypt and that Ontario could assume jurisdiction only if the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

Applying the serious-harm approach equated with Hague Convention article 13(b) jurisprudence, the court found the sexual-abuse allegations were not credible, found no evidentiary basis for other alleged risks, and held nothing displaced the presumption that the Egyptian court would protect the child’s welfare.

The Ontario court therefore declined jurisdiction over permanent custody and ordered the child returned to Egypt under temporary CLRA relief.

The appellant denturist appealed the revocation of his licence and a costs award by the Discipline Committee.

The Committee found the appellant had provided dental services outside his scope of practice to multiple patients, including vulnerable children, and submitted 911 false insurance claims totaling over $91,000 using the identities of two dentists.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty of revocation was not unreasonable given the egregious nature of the misconduct, and the costs award of $70,000 (representing 55% of the College's costs) was based on appropriate legal principles.

The Chief Building Official issued building permits for a body rub parlour in a specific zoning area.

A competing business appealed the decision to the Superior Court, where the appeal judge rescinded the permits, finding the CBO's interpretation of the word 'front' in the zoning by-law to be unreasonable.

The CBO and the permit holder appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard of review.

The CBO's interpretation of the by-law was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claim against a university and a department chair.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, which it determined was the date the applicant was asked to withdraw for academic reasons.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application as untimely was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons appealed a penalty imposed by its Discipline Committee on a physician found to have sexually abused four female patients and committed unprofessional conduct toward a fifth.

The Committee had imposed a six-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the penalty clearly unfit and unreasonable given the gravity of the misconduct, the inconsistent factual findings regarding the physician's intent, and the need for general deterrence to eradicate sexual abuse in the profession.

The penalty was quashed and remitted to the Committee.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside an order of the motions judge, which added the Williams Treaties First Nations as necessary parties or interveners to an application for judicial review and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the applicants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that the First Nations would be directly affected by the declarations sought.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that the applicants persisted with an unnecessary motion despite being on notice that elevated costs would be sought.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of sexual abuse and revoking her license.

The finding of sexual abuse was based on a romantic kiss with a vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the doctor-patient relationship had ended prior to the kiss and that the Committee breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a letter from the patient after the close of evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reversal of the burden of proof, and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the extensive history of boundary violations and professional misconduct.

The applicant mother sought to vary a final custody order to permit her to take the two children to Japan for a vacation without the respondent father's consent.

The father opposed the motion, expressing apprehension that the children would not be returned, citing the mother's history of denying contact, Japan's poor record of enforcing the Hague Convention, and the father's lack of legal standing under Japanese law for both children.

The court balanced the children's interest in visiting their mother's birth country and extended family against their interest in maintaining a relationship with both parents.

The motion was dismissed, as the court found the father's concerns to be legitimate and outweighed the benefits of the proposed trip, given the mother's history and the lack of accountability in the circumstances.

The plaintiff brought an action to invalidate her late mother's 2007 will, which left the entire estate to the defendant, her brother.

The plaintiff alleged the will was the product of undue influence.

The court reviewed the history of the mother's changing wills and powers of attorney, the strained relationship between the plaintiff and the mother, and the mother's diminished capacity.

The court found that while there were suspicious circumstances, the mother had her own reasons to disinherit the plaintiff and retained a strong will.

The court concluded the 2007 will was the product of the mother's own volition and dismissed the action.

The applicant father brought a motion to increase his access to the parties' three-year-old child.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer had conducted an investigation and recommended a gradual increase in access, noting that the father's doctor had no concerns about his pain medication management.

The respondent mother opposed the increase, citing ongoing concerns about the father's prescription medication use.

The court found the mother's concerns were unfounded and contrary to objective medical evidence, and granted the motion to increase the father's access.

The parties separated in 2011, with previous orders settling divorce, custody, access, and child support.

The court addressed outstanding issues of property division, spousal support, and child support enforcement.

The court ordered the reintroduction of the Family Responsibility Office for child support enforcement.

The respondent was awarded $7,500 in lump sum compensatory spousal support, to be paid from the applicant's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The applicant was also ordered to split his pension with the respondent.

The applicant moved for interim spousal support, seeking between $500 and $800 a month.

The parties had been married for 28 years and separated in 2013.

Both parties earned approximately $40,000 annually, with the respondent's income derived from a WSIB pension.

The applicant argued that additional income should be imputed to the respondent based on alleged cash work and unexplained deposits.

The court rejected the request to impute income, accepting the respondent's explanations that the deposits were from a cashed RRSP and transitional banking measures, and that he did not work for cash at his friend's shop.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Following the dismissal of an application regarding the enforcement of an agreement of purchase and sale of real estate, the successful respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $25,000.

The applicant argued for partial indemnity costs of $17,423.10.

The court found the respondent's bill of costs reasonable but determined that partial indemnity was appropriate, fixing costs at $17,500.

The Cornwall Community Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that required a 12% payment in lieu of benefits to all part-time employees, including retirees, and awarded retroactive payments back to 2007 covering expired collective agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable.

The Court also held that the arbitrator's determination of his own jurisdiction to grant retroactive remedies under expired agreements was reviewable on a reasonableness standard and was reasonable based on the Police Services Act and arbitral jurisprudence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a certification vote for part-time employees at Ontario community colleges.

The Board had to interpret the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 to determine which employees would be 'substantially effected' by the vote and whether the employee group was 'substantially representative' given the fluctuating workforce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and application of labour relations principles was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The tenant appealed a consent order from the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him for non-payment of rent.

The tenant failed to set the appeal down for a hearing, evaded service, and did not appear at the scheduled hearing despite being notified.

The tenant claimed the landlord obtained the consent order by misrepresentation regarding municipal by-law violations and a desire to renovate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the tenant's arguments, noting he had not paid rent since April 2015, and ordered immediate vacant possession to the landlord.