Laurence A. Pattillo

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision upholding his ineligibility for an enhanced allowance under Peel's Investment and Affordable Housing program.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the eligibility requirement of living in a self-contained unit was ambiguous.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the applicant was given reasons and opportunities to respond.

The court also held that the determination that the applicant's rooming house accommodation was not a self-contained unit was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union and refusing reconsideration.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Board failed to contact it by telephone, and that the Board's finding regarding delivery of the certification application was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the procedural fairness argument was not raised before the Board and the Board's decision on delivery was reasonable based on the evidence.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent subcontractor's construction lien claim for unpaid work.

The appellants argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons for credibility findings and erred by failing to reduce the claim for incomplete work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were more than sufficient and deferring to the trial judge's factual finding that the work contemplated by the contracts had been completed before the relationship broke down.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring him to pay $29,437.38 in credit card debt to the respondent bank.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in applying section 68(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, claiming he never signed an application and only used the card for business purposes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made reasonable factual determinations based on the appellant's own evidence that he applied for and used the card, establishing liability under the Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of three decisions by the Ontario Racing Commission and its Director, which resulted in the freezing of their purse accounts, a ten-year licence suspension, a $400,000 fine, and forfeiture of funds.

The applicants argued the Director lacked jurisdiction to freeze the accounts, the Commission failed to provide adequate particulars, the Vice-Chair lacked jurisdiction because his term expired before the merits hearing, and the merits decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that while the Director lacked jurisdiction to issue the freezing order, this did not invalidate the merits decision.

The court found the particulars were sufficient, the Vice-Chair retained jurisdiction under s. 4(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act having heard preliminary motions, and the merits decision was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motions to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff, a foster parent, alleged the defendants failed to disclose material information about a foster child who subsequently assaulted her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a rival union.

The applicant argued the Board breached natural justice by denying its request for production of documents related to alleged employer support for the rival union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's denial of the production request was an exercise of its statutory discretion under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, not an issue of natural justice.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the applicant had not established a foundation for its case and was improperly seeking production to determine if it had one.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation action under Rule 21.01(1)(a).

The underlying action involved alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant, a condominium unit owner and former board president, about the developer.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the defence of privilege involved mixed fact and law requiring a complete factual record.

The Law Society brought a conduct application against the respondent lawyer.

The respondent moved to strike a particular based on a limitation period defence, which the Hearing Panel dismissed.

The respondent appealed to the Appeal Division, which quashed the appeal on the basis that the Hearing Panel's order was not final.

The respondent then appealed to the Divisional Court and sought a stay.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that mid-hearing rulings in regulatory conduct proceedings are not final orders under the Law Society Act, distinguishing the civil jurisprudence on final versus interlocutory orders.

The motion for a stay was dismissed as moot.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy because his dog caused or contributed to the landlord's severe allergic reaction.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness, exhibited bias, misapprehended evidence, and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's procedures were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the evidence supported the finding that the dog exacerbated the landlord's asthma.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order making her three children Crown wards, with no access for the purpose of adoption.

She argued the Children's Aid Society failed to provide a proper written Plan of Care, the trial judge failed to consider returning the children under supervision, and the trial judge erred in denying access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law.

The trial judge properly considered the Plans of Care, correctly concluded that a supervision order would not work, and reasonably found that access would not be beneficial and would impair adoption opportunities.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation arising from the sale of a restaurant.

The trial judge found the individual appellant knowingly misrepresented the amount of TMI rent to the respondents, entitling them to terminate the agreement and recover their deposit and expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions.

The court also rejected arguments that an entire agreement clause precluded the misrepresentation claim and upheld the award of punitive damages.

The employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the employee $25,000 for wrongful dismissal.

The employee was terminated for cause following a workplace altercation over a bagel, for which she had already been suspended.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the enforceability of the employment contract's termination clause, but found the clause void for potentially violating the severance provisions of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer lacked just cause for termination and that dismissing the employee after she had already served a suspension for the same incident constituted double jeopardy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed its defence of set-off against the respondent employee's wrongful dismissal damages.

The employer claimed the employee negligently failed to back up her work and lost USB keys, causing the employer to incur costs to reconstruct accounting data.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in his reasons for dismissing the set-off claim, but ultimately upheld the dismissal because the evidence did not establish the employee was negligent or breached her employment contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the calculation of a lender's administrative fee payable to the respondent under a loan agreement.

They argued the application judge erred by not considering the mortgage itself to determine the fee amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the mortgage provided for the fee, the mortgage commitment letter correctly governed its quantum.

The application judge's reasoning was adopted, and the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant Trustee in Bankruptcy and Receiver sought approval of its reports and a declaration that a 2009 transfer of a half-interest in a residential property by the bankrupt to his spouse was a transfer at undervalue under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court approved the Receiver's reports but dismissed the application regarding the property transfer.

The court held that the 'transfer' under s. 96 of the BIA occurred when the transfer documents were executed, not when they were registered, placing it outside the five-year lookback period.

Furthermore, the transfer was made for valid consideration as part of a matrimonial settlement, and there was no intent to defeat creditors.

The applicant sought judicial review of an OIPRD decision affirming the Toronto Chief of Police's conclusion that his assault complaint against an officer was unsubstantiated.

The applicant argued the OIPRD breached procedural fairness by refusing to disclose the subject officer's statement before the applicant provided his own.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no statutory obligation to disclose the officer's statement to the complainant at the investigative stage, and held that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable.

The moving party brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge that lifted a stay because the moving party failed to provide credible proof of financing without conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the single judge's decision.

The court also held that the moving party could not seek to vary an earlier order after having accepted it and failed to comply with its conditions.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order consolidating her Superior Court action with the respondent's Small Claims Court action (which had been transferred to the Superior Court) and awarding costs.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge correctly ordered consolidation because the two franchise dispute actions dealt in substance with the same set of issues.

As leave to appeal the costs award had not been granted, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order setting aside a default judgment, alleging breaches of procedural fairness due to the Deputy Judge's failure to hear oral submissions and provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had notice and an opportunity to respond in writing, and that the inadequacy of reasons does not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.

The court concluded that the application was essentially a disguised appeal of an interlocutory order, for which no right of appeal exists.