Katherine E. Swinton

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal zoning by-law that added a motor vehicle service station as a permitted use on the respondent's property.

The application was brought more than four years after the by-law was enacted.

The applicant argued that the municipality failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed amendment, denying it the right to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application due to the significant delay, finding that the municipality had complied with the statutory notice requirements and that the delay caused prejudice to the respondents who had relied on the by-law.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which determined that the current value assessment of a landfill site should exclude the value of a facility used to generate electricity from landfill gas.

The appellants argued the facility was a commercial activity, not used exclusively for landfilling activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the generation of electricity from landfill gas is an environmental control activity required by the site's environmental compliance approval, and thus falls within the definition of landfilling activities under O. Reg. 282/98.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Joel Breault, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Croll J. dated September 24, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 for the Landry plaintiffs and $2,500 for the Davies defendants, payable by the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated November 16, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $7,217.88.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations.

The tribunal found the appellants engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including falsifying bills of sale and failing to disclose accident damage, and knowingly provided a false statement on a renewal application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the liability findings and concluding that the penalty of revocation was not clearly unfit given the pattern of manipulating unsophisticated consumers.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The ICRC had required the applicant to appear for a caution and submit a reflective essay following a complaint from a female patient regarding an inappropriate comment made during a pelvic examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's conclusions regarding the adequacy of the ICRC's investigation and the reasonableness of its remedial disposition were transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for persistent late payment of rent and the landlord's need for the unit for a family member.

The tenant argued the Board erred by refusing an adjournment and denying procedural fairness when he failed to attend the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the Board reasonably refused the adjournment due to a lack of supporting evidence and offered the tenant an opportunity to participate by telephone.

The eviction order was upheld, though enforcement was delayed.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for committing an illegal act, seriously impairing safety, and substantially interfering with reasonable enjoyment.

The Board found the tenant threatened a property manager with a machete, acted aggressively, and failed to pay utilities.

On appeal, the tenants argued the eviction provision for illegal acts without a criminal conviction was unconstitutional, but the Divisional Court dismissed this as it was not raised below and no constitutional notice was served.

The Court found no errors of law in the Board's evidentiary findings or its refusal to grant relief from eviction, and dismissed the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $4,500 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The applicant, a medical resident diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, sought judicial review of a university committee's decision dismissing him from a pediatric neurology program for professionalism breaches.

He argued the committee failed to properly consider the duty to accommodate his disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee reasonably concluded that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship, as it would require constant one-on-one supervision to mitigate the risk to vulnerable patients.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The court dispensed with the requirement for a formal issued and entered order in the motion record to save court resources.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party.

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was retroactively revoked due to a prior finding of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse, applied for reinstatement.

The Registrar determined the application was premature, interpreting the five-year waiting period under subsection 33(4.1) of the Act as starting from the date of the deemed revocation rather than the date of the original discipline order.

The Divisional Court found the Registrar's interpretation unreasonable, as it ignored the clear statutory language and context, and quashed the decision, ordering the Registrar to refer the reinstatement application to the discipline committee.

The employer appealed a decision finding its employment contract's termination clause void for breaching the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The application judge had awarded the employee ten months' common law notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the 'for cause' provision illegally contracted out of the ESA by applying a common law 'just cause' standard rather than the statutory 'wilful misconduct' standard.

The Court also found no error in the application judge's assessment of the ten-month notice period, which appropriately considered the Bardal factors and the economic uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The self-represented appellant, a commercial tenant, appealed a trial judge's assessment of damages following a wrongful eviction that destroyed his dry-cleaning business.

The trial judge had awarded $16,000, comprising lost income, loss of equipment, and aggravated damages.

The appellant argued the award was too low, while the respondent landlord cross-appealed, arguing the awards were unjustified.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the principles of contract damages and that the awards were supported by the limited evidence presented at trial.

The Integrity Commissioner appealed a decision imposing a reprimand on a city councillor who breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council meeting regarding a debt owed to a non-profit corporation of which he was a director.

The Commissioner argued the only appropriate penalty was removal from office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that recent amendments to the Act broadened judicial discretion regarding penalties, and the application judge made no error in principle in imposing a reprimand given the mitigating factors.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of P.W. Nicholson J. and a subsequent costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.