Katherine E. Swinton

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to pay $3,000 in statutory compensation to former tenants who had received a notice of termination for conversion of their mobile home site.

The tenants were subsequently evicted for non-payment of rent and owed over $3,300 in arrears.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the compensation obligation survived the eviction and that the claim was not statute-barred.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the Board erred in law by failing to set off the rent arrears against the compensation owed, resulting in no net compensation payable to the tenants.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding them jointly liable for a debt under a vehicle lease agreement.

The appellant argued her obligation was limited to a one-year guarantee based on a promise from her co-defendant, and that res judicata applied due to a prior default judgment against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the trial judge.

The written agreement did not limit the obligation to one year, and section 139(1) of the Courts of Justice Act allows judgment against one jointly liable party without precluding judgment against another.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the cancellation of their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates due to poor safety records.

The appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence of improved safety performance since the Tribunal's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision to cancel the certificates was reasonable given the appellants' high violation rates and past safety issues.

The Court declined to admit the fresh evidence, noting it either could have been obtained prior to the hearing or did not render the sanction manifestly unfit.

Following the dismissal of the application, the court considered the parties' written submissions on costs.

The court fixed the costs payable by the applicant to the respondent union at $6,000.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay $1,400 per month in spousal support.

The Divisional Court found no errors of fact or law in the trial judge's decision, noting the award was slightly below the midpoint of the suggested guidelines based on the parties' incomes at the time.

The court dismissed the appeal but advised the self-represented appellant that he could seek a variation of the support order due to his recent medical leave and reduced income.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found a 9 percent rent increase levied exclusively against pet-owning tenants was an impermissible penalty under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Board held that this penalty substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and awarded a rent abatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Board properly looked at the real substance of the rent increase.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that required it to pay educational assistants for accompanying special needs students on an overnight camping trip.

The school board argued that the employees volunteered and were not 'required' to attend under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of 'required' as 'needed' was reasonable, justified, and fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes.

The applicant, a paralegal candidate, sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision that quashed his motion challenging the constitutional validity of By-law 4 during his good character hearing.

The Hearing Panel had concluded it lacked institutional competence to conduct broad constitutional inquiries into the governance of the Society.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, agreeing that the Hearing Panel correctly held it had no jurisdiction to deal with the broad issue of the by-law's validity, and that such questions are appropriately raised before a court of original jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Social Benefits Tribunal that found her disentitled to ODSP benefits after she inherited a house from her mother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a statutory right of appeal, which she failed to pursue within the time limit.

The court also noted undue delay in bringing the application and found no merit to the substantive arguments, as the applicant was the legal owner of the inherited house.

The employer appealed a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff damages based on a six-month notice period for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court upheld the summary judgment, finding no material facts in dispute regarding the notice period or mitigation efforts.

However, the court reduced the damages by $2,800 due to a calculation error regarding benefits.

The court also granted leave to appeal costs and increased the plaintiff's costs award to $18,000, finding the motion judge erred by failing to apply the cost consequences of Rule 49 after the plaintiff made a favourable offer to settle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirming the Chief of Police's dismissal of his complaint against police officers.

The complaint, alleging assault and fabricated charges, was dismissed because it was made more than six months after the incident.

The Divisional Court found the Commission's decision reasonable, noting a 14-month delay in bringing the complaint, including a four-month delay after the related charges were disposed of.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant physician brought an appeal and an application for judicial review challenging an interlocutory decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had ruled it had jurisdiction to hear allegations regarding patients not specifically named in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for judicial review for prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances to intervene in the ongoing disciplinary process, as the Committee reasonably concluded it had jurisdiction.

The Court also quashed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Health Professions Procedural Code to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order imposing conditions on access to audio tapes and a two-week notice period for further motions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that the condition regarding access to the tapes had already been complied with and the notice period was a procedural matter within the motions judge's discretion.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision and an Appeal Panel's interlocutory decision refusing a stay.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that the applicant must exhaust his internal remedies before the Law Society Appeal Panel before seeking review by the Court.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant father appealed an interlocutory order finding that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear the respondent mother's application for custody and support under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The parents had a joint custody arrangement where the children alternated weeks between the mother's home in Ontario and the father's home in Quebec.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge erred by failing to determine the children's habitual residence.

The Court held that under s. 22(2)(b) of the CLRA, a child can have two concurrent habitual residences in appropriate circumstances.

While the Ontario court had jurisdiction, the Court declined to exercise it under ss. 25 and 42(2), finding that Quebec was the more appropriate forum given the parties' extensive history of litigating the matter there.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying the respondent union and refusing reconsideration.

The employer argued the union fraudulently misrepresented the delivery date of its certification application, causing the employer's response to be deemed late.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's refusal to reconsider was reasonable because the employer had notice of the delivery date dispute prior to the initial decision and failed to raise it in a timely manner.

The appellant, a foreign-trained physician, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The appellant had participated in a practice assessment program but failed to meet the non-exemptible standards for registration, including sufficient knowledge, skill, judgment, and mental competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board and the College's Registration Committee complied with procedural fairness and reasonably concluded the appellant lacked the required qualifications to practice medicine in Ontario.

The applicant sought judicial review of two interlocutory decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: deferring her human rights complaint pending a grievance, and adding her union as an intervenor.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances or loss of jurisdiction to justify reviewing interlocutory decisions.

The court also declined to hear a Charter issue that was not raised before the Tribunal.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission, which upheld a private racetrack's decision to suspend the applicant owner's racing and stabling privileges following the death of a 13-year-old racehorse during training.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission had jurisdiction to determine whether the public interest warranted interfering with the racetrack's private property rights.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was procedurally fair and reasonable, as the evidence supported the finding that the applicant failed to take reasonable precautions regarding the horse's fitness.

The employer brought an application for judicial review to quash an arbitration award that found supervisors were included in the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the arbitration board chair denied natural justice by circulating a draft award without a prior meeting of the panel, and that the majority's interpretation of the collective agreement was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no agreement to hold a meeting prior to drafting, that the employer nominee had an opportunity to participate, and that the majority's interpretation of the recognition clause was reasonable.