Katherine E. Swinton

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision awarding the landlord $10,439.50 for damages to the rental unit, including a destroyed kitchen countertop.

The tenant argued the Board erred by relying on hearsay evidence in the form of repair estimates and by double-counting expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that hearsay evidence is permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the Board reasonably concluded the countertop needed replacement without double-counting.

The appellants appealed a decision denying certification of a proposed class proceeding against CIBC and CIBC World Markets for alleged misclassification of employees making them ineligible for overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that despite an amended class definition, the issue of eligibility for overtime for Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors required individual, case-by-case determinations regarding their managerial or supervisory functions.

The appellants failed to establish a basis in fact that the job functions were sufficiently similar to be resolved as a common issue.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision directing a rehearing of a property tax assessment appeal.

The Divisional Court held that the matter should proceed as an appeal under s. 43.1 of the Assessment Act rather than a judicial review, to preserve the court's gate-keeping function.

Converting the application to an appeal, the court granted leave and allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by concluding there was a procedural fairness violation.

The Board had admitted the landowner's evidence but gave it no weight, which is a matter of evidentiary weight, not procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a judgment determining the sale price, distribution of proceeds, and interest following an application for partition and sale of a jointly owned property.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's findings regarding the initial purchase contribution and the respondent's entitlement to occupation rent due to ouster.

However, the court found palpable and overriding errors in the calculation of carrying costs, the allocation of real estate commission, and the award of pre-judgment interest on funds already paid into court or held in trust.

The appeal was allowed in part to correct these financial calculations.

The appellants appealed a judgment awarding compensation of $228,261.41 to the respondent Estate Trustees on a contested passing of accounts.

The appellants argued the application judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact and awarded a grossly excessive amount.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors, noting the application judge correctly applied the five factors for determining compensation and reasonably concluded the Estate Trustees' demand for releases was justified given ongoing matrimonial litigation.

The respondents cross-appealed the costs award, arguing they were denied natural justice by not being allowed to make submissions on offers to settle.

The Court dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that while an opportunity should have been given, the offers would not have affected the substantial indemnity costs awarded out of the estate.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, a medical resident, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The refusal was based on outstanding, unproven criminal charges of sexual assault.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the law and violated the presumption of innocence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the regulatory scheme places the onus on the applicant to demonstrate good character, and considering unproven charges in the context of public interest does not violate the presumption of innocence.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy due to illegal activities committed by her two sons, who were occupants of the unit.

The illegal activities included possession of stolen property and attacking a security officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision to terminate the tenancy under section 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, or in its refusal to impose a condition barring one of the sons from the premises.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient and conduct unbecoming a physician due to an aggressive outburst at a school concert.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by refusing to sever the sexual abuse allegation, making unreasonable credibility findings, and improperly disciplining him for off-duty conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's decisions on severance, credibility, and off-duty conduct were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant sought costs of $107,070 plus disbursements after successfully appealing a decision under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The respondent argued for no costs on the basis that he was a public interest litigant.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs to either party, noting that success on the appeal was divided, the proceeding raised novel legal issues of public importance regarding municipal codes of conduct, and it was reasonable for the respondent to have pursued the application initially.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to loss of earnings benefits due to her failure to accept offers of modified duties from her employer.

The applicant argued she was not given proper notice of the possible permanent termination of her benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as there was ample evidence supporting the finding of notice and the applicant's capability to perform modified work.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants, former officers of Coventree Inc., appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in Coventree's failure to disclose material changes in its business, contrary to section 75 of the Securities Act.

The Commission had found that changes to credit rating criteria and a subsequent disruption in the asset-backed commercial paper market constituted material changes requiring immediate disclosure.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, concluding that the Commission applied the correct legal tests, based its findings on sufficient evidence, and reasonably exercised its public interest jurisdiction in sanctioning the appellants.

The appeals were dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy for personal use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding good faith and that the affidavit required by s. 72 of the Residential Tenancies Act should have been sworn by the landlord's son.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the good faith finding was a question of fact not subject to appeal, and that the landlord's affidavit was sufficient as he required the unit for his personal use along with his family.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing an appeal from a Master's decision requiring a non-party witness to answer questions on a refusals motion.

The underlying motion sought to hold the moving party liable for a judgment against dissolved corporations under the Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that while there was some doubt about the relevance of certain questions, the moving party failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised an issue of general importance transcending the interests of the parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his complaint.

The applicant had previously settled a civil action and human rights complaint against the respondent college for $10,800, but later applied to the Tribunal claiming the settlement was obtained by fraud and pressure.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal acted reasonably in dismissing the application, as the applicant had signed the settlement, received the funds, and provided no evidence of fraud or contravention.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a Financial Services Tribunal decision that allowed transferred employees to receive immediate unreduced pensions under the Public Service Pension Plan while continuing to work for the successor employer.

The Tribunal had interpreted section 80(3) of the Pension Benefits Act as deeming employment to continue only for the purposes of the Act, but not for the purposes of the pension plan.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation was incorrect.

The Court found that section 80(3) clearly means that transferred employees' rights and benefits under a predecessor pension plan are to be determined as if their employment and pension plan membership are not interrupted.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been dismissed for alleged misconduct involving students.

The board argued the arbitrator applied an incorrectly high standard of proof, drew an unreasonable adverse inference, and improperly excluded similar fact evidence.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the application, finding that although the arbitrator misstated the law by referencing an intermediate standard of proof, a reading of the award as a whole demonstrated he actually applied the correct civil standard of a balance of probabilities.

The majority also found the arbitrator's treatment of the adverse inference and similar fact evidence was reasonable.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the application, concluding the arbitrator's misstatement of the standard of proof was a fatal error of law.

The applicant school boards, as Schedule 2 employers, sought judicial review of the WSIB's refusal to disclose medical and employment information from injured workers' claim files.

The applicants sought this information to pursue subrogated claims against US Asbestos Compensation Trust Funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the right of subrogation under s. 30(11) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act does not confer a right of access to a worker's personal information.

The Court also held that the applicants' challenge regarding the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was premature, as they had an adequate alternative remedy through the freedom of information request process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which dismissed his appeal from a Hearing Panel decision denying his paralegal licence application for failing to meet the good character requirement.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and challenged findings of credibility and untruthfulness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Panel's decision reasonable, the hearing fair, and the findings amply supported by the evidence.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the Ontario Securities Commission sought costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the Commission costs of the appeal fixed at $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding no issue of broad public interest or misconduct by staff during settlement negotiations that would warrant denying costs.

The appellant, the Ontario College of Teachers, appealed a decision of its discipline committee allowing the respondent's motion to have her verbal reprimand administered in Ottawa rather than Toronto.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the committee erred in its application of the doctrine of res judicata.

The court held that the issue of the location of the reprimand had already been decided in a previous hearing where the respondent was ordered to attend in person, which implicitly meant Toronto.

The committee's conclusion that it had not decided the location was unreasonable, and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify refusing to apply issue estoppel.