J. David McCombs

At the outset of the appeal, the appellant sought leave to file an Amended Notice of Appeal and adduce fresh evidence.

The court refused leave to add the first proposed ground of appeal regarding an increase in damages for injurious affection, and consequently refused the fresh evidence in support of it.

The court reserved its decision on the second proposed ground and its associated fresh evidence until after hearing argument on the appeal itself, as it was inextricably interwoven with an existing ground of appeal.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, raising issues regarding whether an occupant was a tenant and whether there was a deemed assignment of the tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the determination of whether the occupant was a tenant was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the Board's finding that the landlord failed to apply for eviction within 60 days of discovering the unauthorized occupancy, resulting in a deemed assignment under s. 104(4), was a finding of fact that could not be challenged.

Costs of $750 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal regarding permanent disability entitlements under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in capping the maximum permanent disability supplement at the amount of a full old age security pension under section 147(8), asserting that the calculation formulas in sections 147(9) and (10) should prevail.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's interpretation accorded with the plain language of the statute and gave meaning to all provisions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal that reduced his temporary partial disability benefits.

The Tribunal had applied a policy requiring partially disabled workers to engage in a self-directed vocational rehabilitation program to demonstrate reasonable efforts to return to work.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in interpreting the legislation.

The court found the Tribunal's decision to reduce benefits due to inadequate effort to seek employment was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to extend the time for serving a notice of hearing for disciplinary proceedings.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that the Commissioner's decision was interlocutory and administrative in nature.

The court emphasized the general principle against fragmenting administrative proceedings and noted that the applicant could raise any issues of prejudice or delay before the hearing adjudicator.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory order made by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in a complaint that had been ongoing since 2003.

The Divisional Court quashed the application, declining to depart from the general rule against hearing judicial reviews of interlocutory orders, despite the troubling history and delay.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to order a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act (CHA) for a proposed golf course and residential development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to order a joint board because the potential hearings under the Ontario Water Resources Act were exempt under the applicable regulations.

Furthermore, the Court found that the OMB had the discretion under s. 24(2) of the CHA to refuse to order a joint board and made no error in exercising that discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit during a union certification process.

The Board had excluded 11 drivers based on the 'greatest attachment' test and 15 employees under the 'office and clerical' exception.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found that the Board reasonably applied the greatest attachment test given the agreed-upon geographical limitation of the bargaining unit, and reasonably concluded that the disputed employees' duties were administrative in nature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting judgment of $13,413.04 to the respondent, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to deference absent a palpable and overriding error.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained his conclusions and provided a sufficient basis for appellate review.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found them liable for a $15,653 breach of contract committed by the main defendant, Nicholas Bulut, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against all defendants without hearing submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding no legal basis in contract, corporate veil piercing, or unjust enrichment to hold the other defendants liable for Nicholas Bulut's breach.

The Court also set aside the trial judge's costs award due to a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice, as the trial judge refused to hear submissions.

The Court substituted its own costs order, awarding the appellants partial indemnity costs from the date of their Rule 49 offer to settle.

The appellants appealed the imposition of two conditions on an order for the partition and sale of a commercial property, while the respondents cross-appealed seeking to reverse the order for sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of co-ownership but set aside the condition requiring the prior payment of $1 million, finding that conflicting evidence regarding payment required a trial.

The court held that the sale could not proceed until the issues of payment and alleged oppression were resolved at trial.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part.

The defendants, eight major financial institutions, successfully defended an appeal of a decision denying certification of a class action regarding mortgage contracts.

The defendants sought their costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting the proceeding was a test case and involved a matter of public interest under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding the case was not a test case, did not raise a novel point of law, and was not a matter of public interest, but rather involved individual commercial mortgage contracts.

The court awarded the defendants modified partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 per defendant.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate, who had revoked an Arbitrator's award of statutory accident benefits and ordered a new hearing on the basis of inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the adequacy of reasons is correctness.

The Court found that the Arbitrator's reasons were sufficiently thorough to explain her rejection of the insurer's medical expert and her acceptance of the applicant's evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Director's Delegate's decision was set aside, and the Arbitrator's decision was restored.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions to certify eight separate class proceedings against various financial institutions.

The claims alleged that the respondents incorrectly interpreted mortgage provisions regarding partial prepayment rights and early discharge penalties.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action as they relied on implied terms not supported by the express language of the mortgages.

The court also agreed that the proposed classes were overly broad, individual issues overwhelmed any common issues, and a class proceeding would be unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision confirming the final report of a Master.

The Divisional Court found a technical arithmetical error in the calculations, specifically double-counting of a $6,868.21 payment.

The appeal was allowed, and the amount owed in the Master's report was reduced accordingly.

No costs were awarded as the success was based on an arithmetical error.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, appealed the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report assessing her former solicitor's bill for services.

The appellant argued the solicitor failed to protect her interests and violated procedural requirements of the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant misunderstood the difference between mandatory and permissive procedures under the Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court upheld the Assessment Officer's factual findings and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash the City of London's approval of a site plan for a townhouse development and a letter from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the UTRCA letter was not a reviewable decision and that the City Council's approval of the site plan was an intra vires municipal decision that was not patently unreasonable.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants sought costs of $120,000 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful judicial review application.

The respondents argued that $30,000 was appropriate.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness from Boucher, the Divisional Court considered factors including the length of the hearing, the complexity of the issues, the voluminous record, and duplication of effort by applicants' counsel.

The court fixed costs at $60,000.

The York Catholic District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision awarding Bernard Homes Ltd. and Crestvalley Homes Ltd. disturbance damages for lost builders' profits and solicitor-client costs following an expropriation.

The developers cross-appealed the OMB's dismissal of claims for lost developers' profits, reduction in land value, and lost executive time.

The Divisional Court allowed the School Board's appeal, setting aside the award for lost builders' profits and the solicitor-client costs order, finding that anticipated profits are not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The developers' cross-appeal was dismissed.

The 70-year-old appellant pleaded guilty to arson causing bodily harm after deliberately setting fires in a house where his four-year-old grandson was sleeping.

The child suffered horrendous and devastating burn injuries.

The trial judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, characterizing the offence as one of 'stark horror' based primarily on the horrific consequences to the victim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by placing undue emphasis on the consequences rather than the appellant's blameworthiness, as the appellant did not intentionally cause the injuries.

The court substituted a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment, reduced to 8 years after credit for pre-trial custody.