Lai-King Hum

The appellant, an internationally trained teacher from France, appealed the refusal of the Ontario College of Teachers Accreditation Committee to grant her a certificate of qualification.

The Committee found she met the linguistic and degree requirements but concluded her distance education program did not meet the professional education requirement.

The Divisional Court found the Committee's decision unreasonable because it focused on extraneous factors, such as the program being online and not granting a diploma, rather than assessing whether the program was substantially different from an accredited Ontario program.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Committee for reassessment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found the Ontario College of Teachers discriminated against him but awarded only $10,000 in general damages and no damages for loss of income.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The Court found it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant lacked the required academic and language proficiency for certification, meaning he had no chance of being hired to teach in Ontario regardless of the discriminatory conduct.

The appellant insured was sued for defamation after posting messages on an internet message board.

He sought a declaration that his homeowner's liability insurer had a duty to defend him in the action.

The insurer denied coverage based on an exclusion for bodily injury or property damage caused by an intentional act.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the exclusion applied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the pleadings in the defamation action, which alleged intentional and malicious conduct, fell squarely within the intentional act exclusion, as the insured's intent to publish the statements necessarily involved an intent to injure the plaintiffs' reputation.

The appellant tenant appealed a Tribunal order terminating his tenancy so the landlord's son could occupy the unit.

The tenant argued the Tribunal erred in interpreting the 'good faith' requirement under s. 51(1) of the Tenant Protection Act, asserting that the landlord's primary motive was economic since the tenant paid below-market rent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that 'good faith' only requires a genuine intention to have a family member occupy the unit, regardless of whether the choice of unit was driven by economic reasons.

The court also found the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion under s. 84(1) by postponing the eviction rather than refusing it.