3 total
The court allowed the sentence appeal and substantially reduced the fines for unregistered real estate trading due to the trial court's failure to consider the offenders' ability to pay.
Appellants appealed sentences imposed for trading in real estate without registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.
The trial court imposed fines of $2,500 per count on each defendant (totalling $20,000 each).
The appellants challenged the fines as harsh and excessive.
The appellate court found the trial court erred in principle by failing to inquire into the defendants' financial circumstances and imposed fines that were clearly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.
The court allowed the appeals and imposed substantially reduced sentences.
Tribunal has jurisdiction to impose conditions on a real estate agent's registration without meeting the revocation threshold.
The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which found that a real estate agent's past criminal conduct (assault and breach of a conditional sentence) did not meet the statutory threshold for revoking his registration, but warranted the imposition of conditions.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal has jurisdiction under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 to impose conditions on a registrant even in the absence of a finding that the past conduct threshold for revocation was met.
The court also found that the tribunal's conclusion that the threshold was not met was reasonable.
Application for judicial review dismissed; OLRB had jurisdiction to restrict remedy to specific applications.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the validity of a collective agreement under section 53.
The applicant argued the Board was required to declare the agreement invalid for all purposes, not just for the two certification applications before it.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had jurisdiction to restrict its remedy to the applications before it and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.
Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent union.
