McNeely

The appellant, a mortgagee in possession, sought to terminate a fixed-term residential tenancy before the end of the term in order to sell the property.

The appellant served a 60-day notice of termination pursuant to the Mortgages Act and the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Tenant Protection Act's requirement that a fixed-term tenancy only be terminated at the end of the term prevailed over the Mortgages Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a mortgagee in possession cannot terminate a fixed-term tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order and the subsequent refusal of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to re-open a review hearing.

The tenant had failed to attend the initial review hearing because he was hospitalized for psychiatric care.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's refusal to consider the tenant's medical inability to attend constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Court extended the time to appeal the original order, set aside the order denying the review request, and ordered a rehearing.

The appellant appealed the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the assessment of its commercial office building, arguing the Board failed to consider the assessed value of similar lands in the vicinity as required by s. 44(2) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court held that while s. 44(2) mandates consideration of similar properties' assessments, the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of such assessments before the Board.

Due to the inadequate evidentiary record, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision which held that the commercial taking of water was not a 'use of land' under the Planning Act and therefore outside its jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the extraction of water using piping and pumps constitutes a use of land.

The Court held that the OMB erred in law by refusing to consider the water taking aspect of the proposed operation and directed a rehearing to consider the entire application for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to revoke his appointment to an industry advisory committee.

The Minister revoked the appointment after learning the applicant was a member of the Hell's Angels.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's exercise of discretion was not unreasonable and that the revocation did not violate the applicant's freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

A dissenting judge would have quashed the decision, finding the revocation unreasonable given the applicant's good character, qualifications, and the fixed term of the appointment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his appeal.

The defendants served their responding record shortly before the hearing.

The plaintiff sought a 30-day adjournment to review the responding record.

The court granted the adjournment, noting the significance of the underlying order, but limited the delay to a date after October 29.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding alleged delays in stock trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to show a genuine issue for trial.

The appellant relied on conclusory statements of fact and belief rather than presenting specific evidence of delay and consequent loss.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument regarding restricted cross-examination as a collateral attack on the judgment.

The appellant appealed an order reducing his child support arrears and imputing an income of $39,000 to him.

He argued that his actual income as a bingo caller was much lower than his previous income as a meat cutter, and that the motions judge erred in imputing the higher amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the affidavit evidence provided an ample basis for the motions judge's finding of underemployment and the imputed income amount.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario suspending its licence.

The appellant argued that the regulatory hearing was barred by res judicata, double jeopardy, and abuse of process following a quasi-criminal acquittal, and that translation difficulties led to a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulatory jurisdiction is separate from the quasi-criminal prosecution, Charter s. 11(h) does not apply to regulatory proceedings, and no unfairness or translation difficulty was established.

The appellant father appealed an order dismissing his application to terminate spousal support and his application to require the respondent mother to pay child support after their daughter moved to his residence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding spousal support, finding no material change in circumstances to justify termination, as the mother had not yet achieved self-sufficiency.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding child support, ordering the mother to pay the Table amount of $222 per month, as she failed to establish undue hardship under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The defendants in a proposed class action appealed a motions judge's decision refusing to compel the proposed plaintiffs to answer questions about an alternative compensation scheme.

The Divisional Court held that 'procedure' in s. 5(1)(d) of the Class Proceedings Act includes alternative dispute resolution methods outside the court system.

However, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that whether an alternative method is preferable is an objective determination for the motions judge, and little is gained by asking the proposed plaintiffs for their opinion on the matter.