Lesli Bisgould

Charlas MacKenzie, eligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance, had his subsidy terminated by Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa.

This was due to his failure to report a change in household composition (daughters removed due to bail conditions) and prolonged absence from his unit (required to live with surety).

The Divisional Court dismissed his application for judicial review, finding the respondents' decisions reasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the respondents' interpretation and application of the Housing Services Act, 2011 and its regulations regarding reporting changes and absence from the unit to be reasonable, particularly in the context of limited housing subsidies and long waitlists.

The court also found no error in the assessment of extenuating circumstances.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they were denied procedural fairness when the Board member refused to allow them to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses regarding the landlord's issuance of a trespass notice to their personal support worker.

The Divisional Court found that the member committed a fundamental error by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity for the tenants to be heard.

The matter was remitted to a different member of the Board for a new hearing on the issues of threats, the impact of the trespass notice, and appropriate remedies.

The appellant tenants appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their motions to set aside eviction orders.

The landlord had obtained the eviction orders ex parte after the tenants signed agreements to terminate their tenancies (N11 forms) under pressure, having been told they had to vacate for renovations without being informed of their statutory rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding the Board Member erred in law by failing to apply the proper test under s. 77(8)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, failing to consider all the circumstances, and failing to assess the real substance of the transactions and the landlord's good faith under s. 202.

The eviction orders were set aside and new hearings were ordered.

The moving party, a vulnerable tenant in subsidized housing, was evicted for a minor breach of a mediated settlement agreement.

The landlord and sheriff executed the eviction before the tenant could file an appeal.

The tenant brought an urgent motion to reinstate his tenancy pending the appeal.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction under section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to reinstate the tenancy despite the execution of the eviction order.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the Board's failure to consider all circumstances, and that the tenant would suffer irreparable harm due to homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion was granted and the tenancy reinstated.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her Ontario Works benefits due to having assets in excess of the allowable limit.

The Tribunal found that the appellant owned three vehicles, the value of which exceeded the $5,000 limit for a single person.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by equating legal ownership with the definition of an 'asset' under the Act and failing to consider if the vehicles were exempt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal made no error in law as the appellant failed to adduce evidence that the vehicles were inaccessible or exempt under the regulations.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program brought a motion to quash the respondent's application for judicial review.

The respondent sought mandamus to compel the Director to pay ODSP benefits based on a Social Benefits Tribunal order, and to review the actions of the Director's representatives who allegedly prevented her from re-applying for benefits.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash the portion of the application regarding the SBT order, finding it plain and obvious it could not succeed because the Director had not made a binding determination of financial eligibility.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the portion regarding the denial of the right to re-apply, finding it was a reviewable exercise of a statutory power of decision.

The court also struck portions of the respondent's affidavits but admitted evidence necessary to supplement the record regarding the denial of the right to re-apply.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction after police found a loaded firearm and drugs in her unit, which were possessed by her son.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by relying on hearsay evidence and misapplying the eviction and relief provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reliance on hearsay was permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the tenant's arguments raised unreviewable questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The appellant tenants appealed a decision denying them a rent abatement after their apartment building's elevator was out of service for 96 days due to a latent defect.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had acted diligently and reasonably in maintaining the elevator and replacing it, and thus did not breach its duty to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's contextual interpretation of s. 20(1), which considered the reasonableness of the landlord's actions, was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.

The appellant's disability benefits were suspended for failing to provide required financial information.

Two years later, she requested an extension of time for an internal review, which the Director denied.

The Social Benefits Tribunal reinstated her benefits, finding her disabilities prevented timely compliance.

The Divisional Court overturned the Tribunal's decision, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to the one-year limitation period for appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was statute-barred and the Director's refusal to extend the time for an internal review was a prescribed decision that could not be appealed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the Director's determination that she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding a new medical report from her family doctor and by distinguishing between 'ache' and 'pain'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal did not err in law in affording no weight to the medical report as it did not relate to the appellant's condition at the time of the Director's decision, and that the Tribunal's interpretation of the appellant's evidence regarding her symptoms was a matter of weighing evidence, not an error of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was discriminated against due to the lack of a special diet allowance for hypoproteinemia under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Court found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding that eating additional protein from food sources is generally recognized in the Ontario medical community as an appropriate treatment for hypoproteinemia.

Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was deemed unreasonable and quashed regarding the respondent's claim for a special diet allowance for elevated protein requirements.

The respondents, who suffered from severe alcoholism, were denied disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) because s. 5(2) disqualifies individuals whose sole impairment is substance dependence.

The Social Benefits Tribunal found this provision discriminated against the respondents based on disability, contrary to s. 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision but proposed a new test for discrimination.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the Divisional Court's new test, finding it improperly removed the requirement to prove disadvantage and reversed the burden of proof.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that s. 5(2) of the ODSPA was discriminatory and rejecting the appellant's expert evidence that the policy was medically appropriate.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision finding that s. 5(2) of the ODSPA, which denies benefits to individuals whose sole impairment is addiction, violated the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the respondents, who were disabled by alcoholism, were discriminated against.

The Court confirmed that the Tribunal was not required to apply the third, dignity-focused step of the Law test to establish discrimination under the Code.

The appellant, a person with a disability who shares joint custody of her three children on an alternating week basis, appealed a decision reducing the basic needs component of her income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal had awarded her 100 per cent of the shelter allowance but only 50 per cent of the basic needs allowance, reflecting the shared custody arrangement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjust the basic needs allowance to reflect the reality of joint custody, as the appellant did not have primary care and control of the children more than 50 per cent of the time.

The appellant appealed a decision of Del Frate J. regarding the contents of the record for an appeal from the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that based on the parties' agreement and Practice Direction 6, the 17-volume record filed by the Director constituted the evidence at the hearing and must be included in the Tribunal's record for the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside a Social Benefits Tribunal ruling denying the respondent disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court erred in its interpretation of s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act by conflating the separate inquiries for 'substantial impairment' and 'substantial restriction' in activities of daily living.

However, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the Tribunal made a palpable and overriding error by misapprehending the respondent's employment history.

The appeal was dismissed and a new hearing was ordered before a different member of the Tribunal.

The appellants sought to set aside a sentence order directing forfeiture of cash bail toward restitution arising from a break and enter and theft involving the release of mink from a fur farm.

The Crown conceded that the Criminal Code did not authorize forfeiture of bail money to satisfy a restitution order, and the court quashed that portion of the sentence.

The majority held, however, that it should not direct payment of the bail funds to third-party family members and a friend who had supplied the money, particularly given possible competing creditor claims and the unsuitability of criminal proceedings to adjudicate such disputes.

Requests for costs and interest against the Crown were also denied.

A dissent would have ordered the bail money returned directly to the third-party funders ex debito justitiae.