Kirsten Franz

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Animal Services Manager to destroy their dog under the Animals for Research Act.

The Manager determined that the dog was a restricted pit bull under the Dog Owners Liability Act, had attacked another dog and a person, and was a menace.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found the Manager's decision reasonable based on licensing records, veterinary certificates, and the dog's physical characteristics.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision ordering its Chief Building Official to issue building permits for sun rooms using sandwich panels and to evaluate the applicant's load test data.

The City argued that section 9(1) of the Building Code Act granted the official discretion to refuse to evaluate test results if the testing method was not specified in the Building Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 9(1) does not grant discretion to defeat applications relying on design methods authorized in the Building Code, such as load testing.

The court also upheld the motions judge's factual finding that the submitted data was adequate and dismissed the appeal on costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeals against the City's official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the redevelopment of a hospital site.

The moving party opposed the demolition of the old hospital building, raising environmental, affordable housing, and heritage preservation concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any of the raised issues.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a municipal animal services official determining that his dog was a pit bull, was unsterilized, and posed a menace, thereby subjecting the dog to the requirements of the Animals for Research Act.

The applicant alleged bias, procedural unfairness, and disputed the breed determination.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, and concluded that the official's decision was reasonable given her expertise and the evidentiary record.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants sought a refund of business taxes for the years 1994 to 1996 under s. 443 of the Municipal Act, arguing they were overcharged due to an error of fact in their assessment classification.

The City denied the application, and the Divisional Court dismissed the subsequent application for judicial review.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the incorrect categorization of the business was an error of fact, not an error in judgment, as the Assessment Commissioner was not aware of the full facts at the time of the original assessment.

The Court also found that a letter from the acting Regional Assessment Commissioner constituted valid confirmation of the error and that the City was the proper respondent.

The appeal was allowed and the City was ordered to consider the refund application.