Katherine E. Swinton

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay the tenant $675 for half a month's rent and a $2,000 administrative fine.

The Board found the landlord harassed the tenant, interfered with vital services, and acted in bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it raised no question of law and that the Board's findings and remedies were reasonable given the landlord's egregious conduct.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the N5 notice of termination was void due to technical defects, specifically a missing bullet point and the inclusion of both repair and replacement costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the notice was compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act because a reasonable person would understand their options to void the notice.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding interest and costs awarded following the expropriation of its lands by the respondent City.

The Board had calculated statutory interest based on the appellant's net interest in the lands after deducting an outstanding mortgage, and awarded costs against the appellant from the date of a Rule 49 settlement offer that exceeded the final compensation award.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation of the Expropriations Act regarding both the interest calculation and the costs award to be reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant nurse appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for failing to comply with an order to complete a remediation program.

She argued she was denied natural justice because she could not challenge the underlying allegations.

The College cross-appealed, arguing the conduct should have been found 'dishonourable' and a longer suspension imposed.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that the appellant could not collaterally attack the underlying order, and that the Discipline Committee's findings on misconduct and the two-month suspension were reasonable.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his applications for substantial interference and failure to meet maintenance obligations.

The tenant and his family had moved into the rental unit but left the next day because it was unsafe and unfit for habitation due to ongoing repairs.

The Divisional Court found the Board erred in law by focusing on the tenant's prior knowledge of the unit's condition, ignoring evidence of the severity of the deficiencies, and failing to provide a remedy despite finding the unit unfit for habitation.

The appeal was allowed, and the tenant was awarded the return of his deposit, rent abatement, and out-of-pocket expenses.

The Registrar, Alcohol, Gaming and Racing appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal which directed the Registrar not to suspend the liquor licence of The Royal Oak.

The Registrar had proposed a 60-day suspension after an intoxicated patron left the premises and was later found dead in the snow, arguing the licensee's obligation not to permit drunkenness included ensuring the patron arrived at a safe place.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and holding that s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 does not impose an ongoing obligation on a licensee to ensure a patron's safe arrival at a destination after leaving the premises.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission refusing to revoke a Direction to Exclude her from all Ontario gaming sites.

The exclusion was originally imposed due to findings that the applicant was involved in loan sharking at criminal rates of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar's decision reasonable given the gravity of the past conduct and the applicant's failure to demonstrate she appreciated the gravity of her actions or that there was no risk of reoccurrence.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that allowed an employee to participate in a representation vote on a displacement application.

The applicant argued the employee should have been excluded under the April Waterproofing doctrine because he was not assigned to work by the incumbent union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably interpreted 'in the bargaining unit' based on the work being done and reasonably applied its current, more nuanced approach to the April Waterproofing doctrine.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his defence and granting judgment to the respondent for a credit card debt of $10,840.17.

The appellant argued that the respondent increased his credit limit without his express consent, contrary to regulations under the Bank Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge did not err in accepting the respondent's evidence that the appellant had authorized the increases via internet and telephone banking.

The defence had no meaningful chance of success at trial.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge had found that the termination clause in the appellant's employment agreement was enforceable and clearly rebutted the common law presumption of reasonable notice, limiting his entitlement to the minimums under applicable employment standards legislation.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's objective interpretation of the contract and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision which held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress arising from workplace bullying and harassment.

The Board concluded that the injury would be compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, relying on previous tribunal decisions that found the acute mental stress limitation unconstitutional.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and declining to consider new arguments regarding the employment function bar and the Occupational Health and Safety Act that were not raised before the Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university discipline board decision that upheld a tribunal's finding of academic dishonesty regarding his doctoral thesis.

The tribunal had denied the applicant's request for an adjournment and proceeded with the hearing and penalty phase in his absence, ultimately recommending his degree be cancelled and he be expelled.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal's decisions to deny the adjournment and proceed immediately to penalty were procedurally fair and reasonable given the extensive history of delay, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence, and the prior notice provided to the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance concerning the employer's refusal to pay a bilingual bonus to part-time indeterminate employees working temporarily in bilingual positions.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The Court found that the arbitrator's reliance on past practice and the specific wording of the collective agreement regarding the bilingual bonus was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the employer.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the calculation of income for social assistance purposes.

The Tribunal had included a loan incurred for refinancing an existing student loan as income.

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

The Court held that there is implicit discretion under s. 48(1) of O.Reg. 134/98 to exclude a loan where the recipient receives no actual financial benefit or increase in assets.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The appellants appealed an order finding that a trail across their land was an 'access road' under the Road Access Act and refusing to order it closed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that prior owners had permitted the respondent's use of the road to access his landlocked property.

The court also upheld the application judge's discretionary decision to refuse closure and impose conditions, noting the respondent's long-term use and lack of disruption to the appellants.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which had overturned an arbitrator's award of income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator had applied a 'material contribution' test for causation.

The Director's Delegate correctly held that the 'but for' test was the proper standard but erred in his explanation of how the test applies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the order remitting the matter to a new arbitrator to apply the correct legal test for causation.

The purchasers entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction condominium townhouse.

The vendor repeatedly rejected the purchasers' mortgage commitments and evidence of financial ability to close, eventually terminating the agreement and claiming forfeiture of the deposits.

The court found that the purchasers had complied with their financing obligations and that the vendor acted unreasonably and in bad faith, having secretly decided to convert the development into a rental property.

The court declared the agreement binding, ordered the return of the purchasers' deposits, and directed a trial on the issue of damages for loss of bargain.

The appellants, estate trustees for two deceased individuals who executed mirror Primary and Secondary Wills, appealed a decision denying their applications for Certificates of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The application judge had held that a will is a trust and that the allocation clauses in the Primary Wills failed the 'three certainties' test for trusts due to uncertainty of subject-matter.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that a will is not a trust and is not subject to the three certainties.

The Court further held that even if the three certainties applied, the allocation clauses provided an objective basis to ascertain the subject-matter, satisfying the certainty requirement.

The Court ordered the issuance of the requested Certificates of Appointment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding his employer breached its procedural duty to accommodate his disability but awarding only $5,000 in general damages.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by considering seniority rights and a WSIB incentive program in its accommodation analysis, and by failing to award lost wages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's findings on the duty to accommodate and its remedial order were reasonable given the evidentiary record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission refusing to investigate an incident from 2006 where the applicant's brother was tasered by police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion not to proceed with an investigation given the passage of time and the extensive airing of the issues in prior court proceedings.

The court also found no error in the Commission's treatment of the evidence or any basis for allegations of an improper purpose.