John Mill

The applicant, a beginning hothouse tomato farmer, sought judicial review of a decision denying it full funding under the Ontario Farm Income Disaster Program.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness and relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectations regarding the calculation of its reference margins.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness through its participation in the review process, and that the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not create substantive rights to a particular funding calculation.

The applicant housing cooperative brought a motion to lift the stay of enforcement of a Writ of Possession pending the respondent's appeal of the eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling evidence of a risk of serious physical harm to the cooperative or its residents that would constitute irreparable harm.

The court also found that the balance of convenience and prejudice favoured the respondent, as lifting the stay would require her to vacate her home of 25 years and potentially deprive her of statutory protections under the Co-operative Corporations Act if her appeal succeeded.

The appellant housing co-operative appealed a decision dismissing its application to evict the respondent for breaching its lock and pet by-laws.

The trial judge had dismissed the application on the basis that the by-laws were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in principle by failing to defer to the democratically enacted by-laws of the co-operative.

The Court held that absent bad faith or overwhelming unreasonableness, courts should not substitute their views for those of a co-operative's membership.