Joan L. Lax

The appellant purchaser appealed a decision finding that a real estate transaction was for a block parcel of land rather than on a square foot basis.

The purchaser argued that the real estate agent misrepresented the land size.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the purchaser was provided a site plan with precise measurements prior to closing and could not have been misled.

Furthermore, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale contained an entire agreement clause, and the purchaser did not make square footage a term of the agreement.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to intervene in an ongoing Ontario Human Rights Tribunal hearing regarding the implementation of remedial orders for workplace discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent unusual circumstances.

The court found no such circumstances, noting the applicants' interests were aligned with the Ministry, which was already a party, and emphasizing the chaotic consequences of granting party standing to every non-party whose conduct is raised in evidence.

The insured suffered water damage to her home and claimed extensive mould contamination, which the insurer denied.

The insurer invoked the appraisal process under s. 128 of the Insurance Act.

After significant delays and a court order compelling the appraisal to proceed, the insured changed appraisers on the eve of the hearing and requested an adjournment.

The Umpire refused the adjournment and proceeded in the insured's absence, determining the loss based solely on the insurer's evidence.

The insured applied for judicial review, arguing a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that given the history of delay and the strict court order compelling the appraisal, the Umpire did not exceed his jurisdiction or deny natural justice in refusing the adjournment.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Umpire's decision determining the value of a property loss following a water leak.

The applicant argued the Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction and denied her natural justice by refusing her request for an adjournment and proceeding with the appraisal in her absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Umpire acted within his authority under a prior court order compelling the appraisal to proceed, and that the applicant's voluntary withdrawal from the process did not constitute a denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant brought applications for judicial review of decisions made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Divisional Court denied the applicant's request to call witnesses, noting that judicial review is limited to the record before the administrative boards.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the court found both administrative decisions to be reasonable and dismissed the applications as frivolous and vexatious.

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

The applicant, operator of the Highway 407 toll road, sought an order of mandamus compelling the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to refuse to validate or issue vehicle permits for individuals who failed to pay tolls.

The Registrar had refused to act, arguing that he had a duty to ensure the applicant complied with the statutory scheme and that individuals were not wrongly denied plate renewals.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Highway 407 Act imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to deny permits upon receiving notice of non-payment.

The court held that the Registrar has no discretion or oversight role to look behind the notices or compliance certificates, and declined to exercise its residual discretion to refuse mandamus.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

The dispute centered on a numbered company incorporated by the appellant's late husband to hold a Florida condominium, with shares held by the appellant and the husband's children.

The motion judge found that the husband had loaned money to the corporation and had not forgiven the loan prior to or upon his death.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the loan remained an obligation of the corporation and that the failure of the estate to forgive the loan did not constitute oppressive conduct by the corporation or its directors.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions declaring that the applicant was bound by a national collective agreement across all its operations, not just its Toronto district office.

The applicant argued the Board erred in its application of the common law of agency regarding ostensible authority and in its factual finding regarding the scope of the company name on the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision, which involved interpreting a collective agreement in a labour relations context, was subject to a patently unreasonable standard of review and met that standard.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating her tenancy and limiting her claim for interest on her rent deposit to one year.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying a one-year limitation period to the interest claim, finding the tenant was entitled to interest from the start of her tenancy in 1998.

However, the Court upheld the eviction order, finding the Tribunal's decision regarding unpaid rent was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant, a corporate director, appealed a decision finding him personally liable under s. 248 of the OBCA for a corporate debt owed to the respondent for fresh produce.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the appellant was a director, there was no evidence he exercised his powers in an oppressive or unfairly prejudicial manner.

A related appeal from a decision refusing to set aside the original order on the basis of mistake was dismissed.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenants a $2,000 rent abatement.

The tenants had sought the abatement on the basis that the landlord improperly cashed a rent cheque.

The hearings officer informed the tenants this was not a proper ground, but fashioned a new basis for the abatement on her own accord without giving the landlord notice.

The Divisional Court held this constituted a denial of natural justice, allowed the appeal, and quashed the Tribunal's orders.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to dismiss her duty of fair representation complaint against her union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over two years after a mediated settlement to file her complaint, alleging she only later discovered adverse tax consequences and a missed pension buyback opportunity.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision to dismiss the complaint for delay without a hearing on the merits was not patently unreasonable, as the Board has jurisdiction to determine its own procedures and the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario granting the respondent an extension of time to appeal an arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had previously dismissed the respondent's claim for income replacement benefits as statute-barred.

The Director's Delegate extended the time to appeal because a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision raised a novel issue of broad significance regarding limitation periods.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Director's Delegate's discretionary decision to extend the time was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Arbitrations, which upheld an Arbitrator's dismissal of his claim for statutory accident benefits and ordered him to pay arbitration expenses.

The applicant claimed he was injured on a TTC bus, but initially reported it as a subway accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Arbitrator's factual findings and costs order were supported by the evidence and not patently unreasonable.

The tenants appealed a Tribunal decision finding they committed an "illegal act" under s. 62(1) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, related to drug activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment pending the tenant's criminal charges.

The Court also held there was sufficient evidence of an illegal act and that the Tribunal properly considered how drug activities negatively affect the community's character and reasonable enjoyment.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured motorist.

She sued her former solicitor for failing to commence an action against the tortfeasor within the limitation period.

She later sought to amend her statement of claim to add a direct action against her insurer.

The master refused the amendment, finding the claim was statute-barred.

The solicitor appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the limitation period for a direct action against an insurer begins when the insured knew or ought to have known the tortfeasor was uninsured, which in this case was more than two years before the proposed amendment.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that the respondents fell within the transition provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and were entitled to a hearing on their appeals regarding aggregate resource uses.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the interpretation of the newly enacted legislation raised a point of law of sufficient public importance and that there was sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision refusing an injunction.

The motion judge had dismissed the injunction motion on the basis of res judicata, as the moving party was one of several parties to an identical motion previously dismissed, and because the second and third steps of the RJR Macdonald test were not met.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and held that the legal issues raised were not of general importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed without costs.

The court appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of the appellant corporation and ordered the appellants to fund the inspector's work.

The appellants appealed the order and argued that the funding requirement was an 'order for the payment of money' automatically stayed under Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court held that an order to fund a court-appointed inspector is not an order for the payment of money, as it does not give monetary relief to a party and cannot be enforced by a writ of seizure and sale.

The court declared the automatic stay inapplicable and, in the alternative, exercised its discretion to lift the stay.

The appellants' cross-motion for a stay was dismissed.

Following a successful judicial review application, the applicants sought costs of $113,017.43 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and applied the principle that a costs award must reflect a fair and reasonable amount for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than an exact measure of actual costs.

The court disallowed costs for proceedings before the administrative tribunal, reduced the hourly rates claimed for counsel, and found the hours claimed for preparation and submissions excessive.

Costs were fixed at $25,681.93 inclusive of disbursements.