Harvison-Young

The appellant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, appealed a trial decision awarding her $350,000 in dependant's relief from the deceased's estate.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge made several errors in principle, including misapplying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, improperly relying on the deceased's unimplemented intentions, and incorrectly calculating the net estate assets.

The Court set aside the trial judgment, conducted its own analysis of the legal and moral claims of the dependants, and increased the appellant's award to $750,000, plus costs, to adequately provide for her proper support while balancing the competing claims of the deceased's separated wife and adult daughters.

The applicant physician sought a declaration that the hospital board's decision to revoke his privileges mid-term was automatically stayed pending his appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA).

The Divisional Court granted the declaration, finding that the hospital's by-laws and a prior agreement created a legitimate expectation that the applicant was entitled to a formal hearing.

Because a hearing was required 'otherwise by law', the SPPA applied, triggering the automatic stay provision.

The appellant anaesthesiologist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he failed to maintain the standard of the profession and engaged in disgraceful conduct following the death of a patient after liposuction surgery.

The Committee revoked his certification and issued a reprimand, finding he failed to recognize the patient's critical condition, lacked insight, and dishonestly altered a resuscitation note.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's factual findings were reasonable, the appellant was not denied procedural fairness, and the penalty of revocation was appropriate given the severity of the misconduct and lack of insight.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced a court action for accident benefits within the limitation period.

She later applied for arbitration regarding catastrophic impairment.

The priority insurer successfully moved to have the issues heard together in arbitration, but then argued the income replacement benefits claim was time-barred from being added to the arbitration.

The arbitrator ruled the claim was not time-barred, but the director's delegate reversed this decision.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that commencing a proceeding within two years of the refusal to pay fully satisfies the limitation requirement, even if the claim is subsequently added to a later proceeding.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granting the respondent bank recovery of a credit card debt.

The central issue was whether the action was barred by the six-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the limitation period began to run when the bank terminated the credit card agreement and the entire debt became immediately payable, rather than on the date of the initial missed minimum payment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenants argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because their unit was subject to the Social Housing Reform Act, but conceded at the hearing that the Board had jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act.

They also conceded the Board could not adjudicate their claim that the rent geared to income was excessive.

The court found no denial of natural justice and dismissed the appeal, save for a minor variation in the arrears amount conceded by the landlord.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent, brought by the respondent mortgagee in possession.

The tenant argued the Board erred in its factual findings regarding notice and rent payment, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the premises were exempt under s. 5(j) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's factual findings and noting that the jurisdictional argument was not raised before the Board.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision terminating his membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative and ordering a writ of possession for arrears and persistent late payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness in the Board proceeding in his absence, as his failure to attend was deliberate.

The court also found no error in the motions judge ordering payment of a minimum admitted amount of arrears without determining the exact higher amount owed, and held it was not unfair to issue the writ of possession given the appellant's failure to pay any amount.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board that found it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with an eviction application.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the landlord obtained an order requiring the tenants to pay rent, failing which a Writ of Possession would issue.

The tenants failed to pay and were evicted.

The Landlord and Tenant Board, as intervenor, brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the execution of the Writ of Possession effectively terminated the tenancy, the dispute had disappeared, and there were no circumstances warranting the exercise of discretion to hear the moot appeal.