Jensen

The applicant, an adjunct professor, sought judicial review of the respondent university's decision not to proceed with her complaint regarding an open letter signed by students concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The university had appointed an external reviewer who concluded the students did not breach the student code of conduct.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to decline to hear the judicial review application, finding that adequate alternative forums, such as a grievance under the collective agreement or an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, were more appropriate to address the applicant's concerns.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a conciliation decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation, which found that 14 construction items in a condominium's common elements breached statutory warranties and that the conciliation was chargeable to the builder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld Tarion's findings.

The court found that Tarion reasonably relied on its construction performance guidelines and the Building Code in assessing the defects, including water leakage in the garage roof slab and tenting of a waterproofing membrane.

The court also upheld Tarion's determination that the conciliation was chargeable, as the builder's settlement offers did not meet the requirements for an exception.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board decision upholding a remedial agreement between the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and a psychiatrist.

The applicant had complained about her premature discharge from a psychiatric unit while experiencing suicidal ideation.

The court found the Board's decision reasonable, concluding the investigation was adequate and procedurally fair.

Although the court expressed concern that the remedial agreement might have been crafted to avoid public disclosure requirements under the Protecting Patients Act, it declined to remit the matter as the physician had already completed the program.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Centa J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay agreed costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated March 28, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a prior decision.

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

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $1,900.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of McGee J. dated March 6, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties did not provide a costs outline.

The appellant sought to quash a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a reconsideration decision, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the appellant was given notice of the hearing, did not request an in-person hearing or accommodation, and did not raise procedural unfairness in his reconsideration request.

The court noted that the decisions do not bar the appellant's claims for attendant care benefits or a special award relating to the timing of non-earner benefits payments.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing her claims for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, catastrophic impairment designation, and attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LAT's decisions regarding the 104-week deadline for income replacement benefits, the assessment of catastrophic impairment criteria, and the reduction of attendant care benefits were reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness violations, concluding that the LAT appropriately controlled its own process.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding she breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses of a settlement agreement by posting about her human rights complaint on LinkedIn.

The Tribunal had ordered the applicant to repay the full settlement amount as liquidated damages and granted an anonymization order protecting the respondents' identities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the settlement agreement, its enforcement of the liquidated damages clause, and its decision to grant anonymization were all reasonable.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency to screen out his complaint against Toronto Police Service officers.

The Director had concluded the complaint, which included allegations of murder conspiracies and cloning, was frivolous and lacked an air of reality.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Director's decision was justified, intelligible, and transparent.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural fairness breaches, noting the low threshold at the screening stage.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.