Katherine E. Swinton

The appellants appealed a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) Chair, who had cancelled a TLAB member's decision granting the appellants' application for property severance and minor variances.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness during the review process and that the Chair applied an incorrect standard of review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the TLAB met its duty of procedural fairness by providing notice and an opportunity to make submissions, and that the Chair applied the correct standard of review by identifying compelling grounds of jurisdictional and factual errors before substituting his own findings.

The appellants appealed an order determining the terms of a shotgun buy/sell agreement reached to settle oppression claims.

They argued the application judge erred by refusing to include a term requiring the corporation to indemnify one of the appellants for personal tax liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the application judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of such an agreement and that the proposed term was not commercially reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying her claim for psychotraumatic disability arising from a 1998 workplace injury.

The WSIAT had found that her depression manifested more than five years after the injury and that the accident was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT's decisions were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which denied his request to amend his application and dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and colour by the Toronto Transit Commission.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the failure to hire with the applicant's age, race, or colour.

The court also found the Tribunal reasonably denied the request to amend the application.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 2, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that no costs be awarded.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded agreed costs of $15,000 to the responding plaintiff.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, payable jointly and severally by the moving party and the City of Toronto.

The applicant sought judicial review of four Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions that denied his appeals and reconsideration requests regarding the impoundment of his vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded twice after the applicant drove while his license was suspended for impaired driving convictions.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness and held that the Tribunal's decisions, including its findings on exceptional hardship and the non-retroactive effect of a criminal driving prohibition stay, were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award finding it had violated a collective agreement by ceasing to produce engine blocks at its Windsor plant.

The arbitrator had interpreted a 'sole source' clause in a Memorandum of Settlement, concluding the employer could not move the work simply because production volumes fell below projections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable, properly considered the context of the negotiations, and did not violate the parol evidence rule.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for a back injury following a workplace fall.

The Tribunal had found the fall was not a significant contributing factor to the injury, relying heavily on the applicant's delay in seeking medical treatment and reporting pain.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to account for uncontradicted medical evidence from the applicant's treating physician and physiotherapist.

The Court granted the application, set aside the decision, and, given the inevitable outcome and lengthy delay, declared the applicant entitled to benefits under s. 13(1) of the WSIA, remitting the matter only for the assessment of those benefits.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision reinstating the respondent's Income Replacement Benefits.

The benefits had been suspended after the respondent failed to provide requested medical records.

The Tribunal found the respondent had a 'reasonable explanation' for the delay under s. 33(8)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator applied the correct legal test for 'reasonable explanation' by considering both objective and subjective factors, and provided adequate reasons for the decision.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outlines were provided.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Speyer J. dated October 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,825.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 17, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed by the parties, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal and the motion for leave to appeal itself.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the underlying order.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The appellants (tenants) appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

At the hearing, the self-represented appellant requested a two-week adjournment.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting that the date was peremptory, previous adjournment requests had been denied, and the appellant had failed to comply with directions to file materials despite numerous accommodations.

As the appellants filed no materials to support their appeal, the appeal was dismissed.

The stay of the eviction order was lifted, with eviction delayed until May 1, 2022, and costs of $3,500 were awarded to the landlord.

The statutory third party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J. Ramsay J. dated December 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the appellant to schedule a case conference.

No costs were ordered.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order and a subsequent costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the responding party plaintiff.

The mother appealed an interim order that temporarily varied a final parenting schedule to a week-about arrangement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to apply the stringent test required for an interim variation of a final parenting order.

The motion judge improperly conflated the best interests of the child analysis with the requirement to find compelling or exceptional circumstances to disturb the status quo on an interim basis.

The interim variation was set aside and the father's motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order made by an application judge concerning guardianship and property disputes.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in law by failing to provide any reasons for his decision, which rendered it incapable of appellate review.

Furthermore, the application judge breached procedural fairness by making orders on matters that were not requested in the pleadings and that contradicted a prior consent order, thereby violating the principle of res judicata.

The matter was remitted to a different judge.