Meehan

The tenants appealed an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal decision that dismissed their application for rent abatement and damages due to the landlord's failure to repair.

The tribunal had ruled that because the repair issues were addressed in a previous order, the new application was barred by res judicata.

The Divisional Court held that the tribunal erred in law, as the tenants were seeking relief for ongoing breaches and new expenses incurred after the landlord failed to comply with the previous order.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the tribunal for a new hearing.

The plaintiff corporation sued the defendants for approximately $180,000 for unpaid invoices.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs, which was initially dismissed on the basis that it would defeat the plaintiff's claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether the plaintiff had access to funds through its sole shareholder.

The court determined that the plaintiff was not impecunious in the extended sense and ordered the plaintiff to post $50,000 in security for costs.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office appealed an order requiring it to pay $801.01 in arrears to the respondent mother.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that in the absence of an identified overpayment by the payor, there was no basis for ordering the Family Responsibility Office to pay the arrears.

The lower court's order was set aside as ultra vires.

The appellant landlord appealed a Tribunal decision finding bad faith in an eviction for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's finding of bad faith and calculation of damages were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and therefore not reviewable.

The Court also found that the absence of transcripts did not prejudice the appellant, distinguishing the case from precedent as there were no allegations of bias or procedural unfairness.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the jurisdiction of the Superior Court over a claim involving a Band Council and declaratory relief.

During the appeal, the parties agreed to reconcile most of their difficulties and issue a new Statement of Claim focusing on unjust dismissal.

The Divisional Court declined to decide the remaining issue of whether a Band Council member can sue the Band Council, leaving it to be raised against the new pleading if necessary.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellant owed considerable unremitted retail sales tax from a previous dealership and had failed to disclose a pending fraud charge on his application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no legal errors and its findings of fact were not clearly wrong.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant father appealed a motion judge's decision varying child support, arguing the judge erred by refusing to impute income to the respondent mother, refusing to make the support increase and extraordinary expenses retroactive, and denying his claims regarding an educational fund.

The father also sought to introduce new evidence of the mother's income tax return.

The Divisional Court admitted the new evidence but found it would not have changed the motion judge's decision.

The court held that the motion judge made no error in fact or law and applied the correct standard of review, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that found he had illegally locked out the respondent tenants and failed to accommodate a tenant's disability.

The landlord argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal waived the 10-day notice requirement and refused his request for an adjournment to obtain police records.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment denied the landlord a meaningful opportunity to be heard and constituted a fundamental error in law.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The tenant brought a motion to dismiss the landlord's appeal for delay, arguing the landlord failed to serve and file proof that the transcript of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal proceedings was ordered within the prescribed time.

The landlord had delayed the appeal for nearly two years and only recently ordered the transcript.

The Divisional Court balanced the interests of the parties, noted the substantial change in circumstances including the loss of the residence by fire and change of ownership, and found the landlord responsible for the excessive delay.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Fire Safety Commission, which had held that an appeal from an Ontario Fire Marshal Delegate was moot because the work outlined in the inspection order had been completed.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission committed a legal error by failing to deal with the issues raised and by applying an incorrect legal view of mootness.

The Court also found the Fire Marshal Delegate's decision to rescind the original inspection order to be patently unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the original inspection order was altered and confirmed.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Energy Board granting leave to construct a natural gas pipeline to the proposed Greenfield Energy Centre.

The appellants argued the Board erred by limiting its public interest consideration to the pipeline itself, rather than considering the environmental and socio-economic effects of the generating station and the resulting closure of a coal-fired plant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly limited its jurisdiction to the specific project before it and correctly deferred to the Ministry of the Environment on the assessment of the plant.

The applicant police officer, facing disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act, sought judicial review of a designated hearing officer's refusal to recuse himself for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant also sought to prohibit the Chief of Police from appointing a former police officer to preside over the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislative scheme allows for the appointment of retired police officers and that there was no evidence of institutional or personal bias.

The appellant, a dental surgeon, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct, revoking his licence, and ordering him to pay $250,000 in costs.

He argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, a denial of natural justice due to refused adjournments, and that the penalty and costs were excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the findings of misconduct and the licence revocation, finding no apprehension of bias or denial of natural justice, and agreeing that the appellant was ungovernable.

However, the court found the costs award unduly high and reduced it to $200,000.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two arbitration awards which held that the employer was not required to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of employees under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the arbitrators' interpretation of the collective agreement, which included reference to external legislation, was patent unreasonableness.

The court found that the arbitrators' interpretation of the unique language in the collective agreement was reasonable and dismissed the applications for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim regarding a damaged sculpture.

The trial judge found that the purported assignment of the sculpture to the appellant was invalid under s. 53(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, as the sculpture had been pledged to the respondent as collateral for an outstanding debt.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings, including the valuation of the sculpture based on expert testimony and the conclusion that the respondent owed no duty of care to the appellant when the sculpture was damaged.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a licensed driver, was penalized by track judges for failing to provide a proper urine sample during random drug testing.

He appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission, which held a de novo hearing and upheld the penalty.

During the hearing, the Commission permitted the senior track judge who made the initial decision to testify.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that allowing the first-instance judge to testify created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application was allowed and the Commission's decision was quashed.

The appellant homeowner appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor damages for unpaid holdbacks and construction extras, while the contractor cross-appealed the partial allowance of the homeowner's counterclaim for deficiencies and delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in her assessment of the conflicting evidence regarding the construction of the new home, including the parties' failure to strictly follow the contractual procedure for requesting extras.

The applicant was seriously injured at work and received WSIB benefits.

The WSIB failed to recognize a potential third-party claim against the equipment manufacturer and did not send the applicant an election form.

When the applicant later sought to sue the manufacturer, the WSIB ruled his receipt of benefits constituted a deemed election and refused to allow him to withdraw his claim without immediate repayment of all benefits.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the WSIB made a patent error in finding a deemed election where the applicant was uninformed, and improperly applied an inflexible rule rather than exercising its discretion based on the merits of the case.

The applicant ratepayer sought a mandatory order (mandamus) to compel the respondent municipality to enforce its by-laws regarding sight lines at two intersections.

The municipality had inspected the intersections and determined they were not hazardous.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that a municipality cannot be compelled by mandamus to enforce a by-law enacted under a discretionary power, and courts should not interfere with the exercise of municipal discretion.

The appellant resort appealed a Board decision suspending its liquor licence for seven days for allegedly serving an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Board's decision.

The Court found no evidence that the appellant's employees supplied liquor to the intoxicated patron, noting the drinks were ordered by another guest.

Furthermore, the Court held the Board failed to properly interpret 'permitted drunkenness', as the appellant's staff had taken reasonable steps to deny service and remove the patron shortly after her arrival.