Laurence A. Pattillo

The applicant landowners sought judicial review of the Minister's decision denying their request to 'bump-up' a class environmental assessment for a road-widening project to an individual environmental assessment.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair due to alleged errors in the environmental study report regarding stormwater management.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision was reasonable as it addressed the applicants' concerns by imposing conditions and relying on concurrent planning processes.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or legitimate expectations.

The applicant, a designated manager of a pharmacy, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

Following a dispensing error where a pediatric patient received the wrong medication, the ICRC ordered the applicant to receive an oral caution and complete a remedial course on root cause analysis.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable given the applicant's responsibility for pharmacy policies.

The moving parties, SP Plus Corporation Canada and Haws Overhead Doors Ltd. and Haws Door & Hardware Ltd., brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Emery J. dated February 24, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $4,000, payable equally by the moving parties.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that deferred his request to state a case for contempt against the respondent school board.

The applicant alleged the school board failed to comply with an interim accommodation order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature as the HRTO proceeding had not concluded.

The court also dismissed the applicant's motion to adduce fresh evidence and held that the HRTO's decision to defer the contempt issue to the merits hearing was reasonable.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent and ordering him to pay $25,000 in arrears.

The tenant argued he owed no rent because the landlord had abandoned the property for six years, failed to maintain it, and that the claim was barred by laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly limited the tenant's repair claims to a one-year period under the Residential Tenancies Act and correctly held that the equitable doctrine of laches does not apply to statutory claims for rent arrears, which have no limitation period.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Desotti J. dated July 30, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $2,200.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought judicial review of the respondent City's actions during the expropriation of restrictive covenants in its lease.

The applicant alleged a denial of procedural fairness regarding the timing of disclosure and the City's refusal to consent to an adjournment of the Hearing of Necessity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City met its statutory obligations and owed no broader common law duty of procedural fairness at that stage.

The Court also declined to rule on the validity of the expropriation, finding the application premature as the applicant had withdrawn from the statutory hearing process and no final expropriation decision had been made.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order dated July 29, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the parties to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $2,500, left to the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 16, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,800.

The moving party, Aviva Canada Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice O'Brien on September 29, 2020.

The respondent did not appear.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice L.C. Sheard on April 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiffs in the amount of $4,000.

The tenant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant argued he was entitled to withhold rent because the landlord failed to provide its address under s. 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

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

The court noted the tenant had lived rent-free for 16 months and owed over $40,000 in arrears.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to lift the automatic stay.

The tenants had ceased paying rent and vacated the property, but refused to return the keys.

The Board ordered eviction and payment of arrears.

The tenants appealed, alleging denial of procedural fairness and errors in applying the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law, was manifestly devoid of merit, and constituted an abuse of process intended solely for delay.

The motion was granted, the appeal quashed, and the stay lifted.

The County sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the applicants' abandoned leave to appeal motion regarding the production of records from closed municipal meetings.

The applicants' appeal became moot after closed meeting investigators concluded the meetings were improperly closed, leading the County to release the records.

Although the court found the leave motion would likely have been unsuccessful, it exercised its discretion under Rule 37.09(3) to order no costs due to the County's actions in improperly closing the meetings.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Penny J. dated December 20, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,762.00.

The moving party, a non-party to the underlying action, sought leave to appeal a costs order made against him by the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the question of whether the trial judge erred in ordering costs payable by a non-party.

Costs of the motion for leave were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) appealed a decision of its Discipline Panel that dismissed four allegations of professional misconduct against an engineer and his firm regarding their environmental assessment and remediation of an oil spill.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Panel committed several errors of law, including applying a standard of proof higher than the balance of probabilities, failing to treat practising without a Certificate of Authorization as a strict liability offence, improperly drawing an adverse inference, and applying the tort concepts of harm and causation to the regulatory definition of negligence.

The court set aside the Panel's decision and remitted the matter to be reheard by a differently constituted panel.

The appellant husband appealed from orders varying temporary child and spousal support, which had been mistakenly issued by the Registrar as final orders.

The Divisional Court set aside the final orders and directed they be reissued as temporary orders nunc pro tunc.

Although leave to appeal the interlocutory orders was required and would not have been granted, the court heard the appeal on the merits.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence regarding the date of separation due to a lack of due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed, as the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in her support determinations.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable to the responding insurance company.