Jonathan Lyon Mendes Miller

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Appeals Committee dismissing his motion for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The respondent conceded that the Appeals Committee's decision breached procedural fairness because the Chairperson had previously presided at pre-hearing conferences.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Vavilov, the Divisional Court declined to remit the matter back to the tribunal, finding that granting the extension of time was the inevitable outcome.

The court quashed the decision and granted the extension of time.

The Registrar issued a Proposal to refuse the renewal of the appellant's registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The refusal was based on the appellant's past criminal convictions, her failure to disclose a personal bankruptcy and a 2012 criminal conviction on her applications, and her breach of registration conditions by failing to have her new broker sign her conditions upon transferring brokerages.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to refuse the renewal of her registration.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to remove a writ of seizure and sale filed by a law firm against the matrimonial home.

The law firm had represented the appellant's wife in matrimonial litigation and obtained judgment for outstanding fees.

The appellant argued the writ constituted an encumbrance requiring his consent under section 21 of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the wife did not encumber the matrimonial home; rather, the law firm, as an arm's length creditor, was entitled to file the writ.

The appellant's interest in the home remains subject to the writ.

This decision re-evaluates a costs award following a successful appeal by the defendant that significantly reduced the plaintiff's damages in a wrongful dismissal case.

The defendant argued that their earlier offer to settle, which included "statutory deductions" without specificity, should trigger Rule 49 cost consequences as the plaintiff's final recovery was less than the offer.

The court found the offer too ambiguous to meet Rule 49's strictures.

It also dismissed arguments regarding fresh evidence of a counsel agreement and the application of Simplified Procedure rules due to the action's commencement date.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court determined that despite the plaintiff's limited success on major claims, the overall results were mixed, leading to an order that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiff invested $5 million in preferred shares of a financially troubled credit union pursuant to an offering statement.

The credit union was subsequently placed into administration and liquidation following the discovery of a complex mortgage fraud and the issuance of large, improper loans.

The plaintiff sued the credit union's directors and external auditors, alleging a material misrepresentation in the offering statement regarding the use of 'appraised values' for mortgage approvals.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no material misrepresentation, no causation, and that the defendants had established a statutory defence.

The court also denied the plaintiff's mid-trial motion to amend the pleadings, ruling the new allegation was statute-barred.

The applicant sought to lift a Writ of Execution filed by the respondent's former lawyers (Farrell & Boyle, represented by Elissa Boyle) against the respondent Meagan McKenney's interest in the matrimonial home.

The applicant argued the writ was an invalid encumbrance under s. 21(1) of the Family Law Act because he, as the spouse, did not consent to its filing.

The court found that Farrell & Boyle, having ceased to represent Ms. McKenney, were acting at arm's length when they obtained the judgment and filed the writ.

Consequently, the writ was not considered an encumbrance within the meaning of s. 21(1) of the Act, and spousal consent was not required.

The court also determined that Farrell & Boyle's interest, secured by the writ, had priority over the applicant's interest, which had not vested prior to the writ's filing.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's past conduct, including misappropriating $100,000 in trust funds, inducing a breach of a buyer representation agreement, changing the terms of a listing agreement without notice, illegally evicting a tenant, and maintaining deficient trust accounts, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the allegations substantiated and concluded that the severity of the conduct warranted revocation of the appellant's licence.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to refuse registration.

An appeal and cross-appeal from a wrongful dismissal judgment.

The trial judge found the appellant, an institutional equity salesperson, was constructively dismissed and awarded 11 months' pay in lieu of notice totalling $240,313.79 (net $137,055.54), including base salary, performance bonus, and shareholders' bonus.

The appellant appealed the calculation of her performance bonus; the respondent cross-appealed on mitigation, notice period, shareholders' bonus entitlement, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross-appeal in part, finding the appellant was not entitled to shareholders' bonus damages as her shares were redeemed upon termination of employment.

The net damages award was reduced to $57,262.96, and costs were remitted to the trial judge for recalculation.

The appellants brought a motion to exclude prior civil judgments and transcripts from being admitted as evidence in their appeal against a proposal to revoke their real estate registrations.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the judgments and transcripts were relevant to the appeal and that their weight would be determined at the hearing.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered that the findings in the civil judgments did not apply to the appellant who was not a party to the civil litigation.

The appellant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke his registration after he was caught on video stealing money and batteries from a home he was viewing.

The Tribunal previously allowed him to retain his registration with conditions, but the Divisional Court overturned that decision and ordered a new hearing.

At the new hearing, evidence revealed the appellant had committed multiple other thefts in his professional capacity and personal life, which he had minimized or concealed from his wife, therapist, and character witness.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's expert psychiatric evidence that he was a low risk to reoffend, finding the appellant lacked credibility and had not been truthful.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's history of unpaid civil judgments, unpaid fines, a criminal conviction for fraud, and failure to disclose charges on a renewal application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's financial position and past conduct demonstrated he could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible or carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal and refuse the registration.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

His previous registration was revoked in 2014 due to professional misconduct.

Under section 17 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, the appellant was required to demonstrate a material change in circumstances to reapply.

While the Tribunal accepted evidence from the appellant's family and a psychologist that he had made positive personal and lifestyle changes, it found this insufficient to prove he could transfer these changes to a high-pressure real estate work environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her personal injury action for delay.

The action arose from an alleged injury during a massage in 2010.

The court found the plaintiff's delay was egregious and lacked a reasonable explanation, but accepted that the deadline was missed inadvertently.

Applying a contextual approach, the court concluded the defendant would suffer no actual prejudice and set aside the dismissal order, allowing the action to proceed on its merits.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that ordered the Registrar not to revoke the registration of a real estate salesperson who admitted to stealing from a client's home.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The Tribunal erred by relying on opinion evidence from a therapist who was not qualified as an expert, refusing to view relevant video evidence of the theft, and imposing unreasonable monitoring conditions that failed to protect the consumer public.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm committed during a recreational no-contact hockey game.

The accused, a goalie, struck another player in the face with his stick after being contacted in the crease, causing serious injuries including a fractured jaw, dental damage, and concussion.

The court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence with two years probation and a prohibition on playing hockey, rejecting both a discharge and incarceration.

The court distinguished between professional and recreational leagues, finding that recreational players do not consent to the same level of violence as professional athletes.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past misconduct as a registered motor vehicle dealer, his failure to pay a liability to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund, and false statements made in his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, had knowingly provided false statements, and had a history of dishonest conduct that afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to refuse her registration as a real estate salesperson.

The original decision found that the appellant's past criminal conviction for sexual exploitation of a young person afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the Adjudicator did not make a significant error of law or fact in weighing the evidence, assessing credibility, or determining that conditions were not an appropriate alternative to refusal.

The appellants brought a motion for the presiding member to recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegations were based on the member's denial of adjournment and disclosure motions, exposure to privileged settlement information during the respondent's opening submissions, and the member's questioning of a witness.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that unfavourable rulings do not constitute bias, adjudicators are capable of disregarding inadmissible evidence, and there was insufficient evidence regarding the alleged improper questioning.

The Registrar brought a motion to quash the Appellant's appeal of a proposal to refuse his registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued that the appeal was an abuse of process because a different panel of the Tribunal had recently refused the Appellant's registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, based on similar statutory grounds regarding past conduct and integrity.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the ultimate issues under the two legislative schemes are distinct.

The Tribunal held that the Appellant was entitled to a hearing to present new evidence and propose conditions specific to the real estate industry.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but requested it be on a 'with prejudice' basis.

The Tribunal, following established jurisprudence, declined to impose conditions and permitted the withdrawal without prejudice, noting the request was made well in advance of the hearing.