Meehan

The appellant Township appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision that approved a zoning by-law amendment for a specialty stone quarry without requiring the respondent to rebuild an access road to current municipal standards.

The Township argued that its Official Plan mandated a road maintenance agreement prior to rezoning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the Official Plan provision was discretionary and specifically applied to gravel trucks, which was inapplicable as the site would not extract gravel.

The Board properly considered the Planning Act requirements regarding transportation needs and municipal finances.

The mother moved to vary a child support order to increase support for two children, one of whom was a permanent Crown ward due to severe developmental disorders.

The motions judge found the child was still a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act and ordered increased support.

The father appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a permanent Crown ward is no longer in the charge of the parents and therefore does not qualify as a 'child of the marriage' for support purposes.

The appellant client appealed a decision dismissing his appeal from an Assessment Officer's report that upheld a solicitor's account.

The client disputed the terms of the retainer, alleging an oral agreement that limited fees if the firm did not take his case, while the solicitor relied on a written retainer for a legal opinion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Assessment Officer's decision, holding that an assessment officer lacks jurisdiction to resolve a bona fide dispute over the existence or terms of a retainer.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissing his application against the landlord for harassment and coercion.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application on a non-suit motion by the landlord's agent, finding the tenant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the tenant was denied procedural fairness and natural justice because he was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the non-suit motion or call his remaining witnesses.

The Court also found the Tribunal Member misapprehended the evidence regarding intimidation and failed to control the abusive conduct of the landlord's agent.

The Tribunal's order was quashed and a new hearing directed.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed their request for an extension of time to file a Request for Review.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which constituted a denial of procedural fairness and an error of law.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to a different Member for a new hearing.

The applicant, a retired school principal, sought an order of prohibition to restrain the Ontario College of Teachers from proceeding with a discipline hearing against him.

The allegations related to his failure to properly screen and discipline a teacher who was later convicted of sexual offences.

The applicant had retired and cancelled his teaching certificate before the professional misconduct regulation came into effect.

The Divisional Court held that the College lacked jurisdiction to apply the professional misconduct regulation retrospectively to a former member who had resigned before the regulation was enacted, as the proceedings would be purely punitive rather than for public protection.

The application for prohibition was granted.

Addendum regarding costs following an appeal in a child protection matter.

The Divisional Court considered the submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court concluded that this was an appropriate case to not require the unsuccessful party to pay costs.

No costs were ordered.

The Children's Lawyer appealed a trial judge's decision to return two children to their mother under a strict 12-month supervision order, rather than making them Crown wards without access.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to apply the paramount 'best interests of the child' test and made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding regarding the parents' ability to protect the children from the father, who had been diagnosed with pedophilia.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was acutely sensitive to the risks, properly balanced the children's best interests with maintaining the family unit, and made no palpable or overriding errors.

The appellant insurer appealed an order requiring it to produce its underwriting file for discovery in an insurance coverage dispute.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge applied the wrong test ('could be relevant' instead of 'semblance of relevance'), the result was correct.

Given the unusual circumstances involving allegations of knowledge possessed by the insured and insurer at the time the policy was issued, the entire underwriting file had a semblance of relevance and was properly ordered produced.

The appeal was dismissed.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee decision that found the respondent chiropractor did not commit professional misconduct regarding allegations of sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee's majority decision unreasonable due to cumulative errors in assessing the complainant's credibility, reliance on stereotypes about sexual assault victims, and failure to consider relevant confirmatory evidence.

The matter was remitted for a rehearing before a new panel.

The appellant, Inco Limited, appealed a decision of the motion judge setting aside a Master's order that had struck the respondents' reply affidavits with leave to amend.

The underlying motion for judgment brought by the appellant was based on statutory authority, the Limitations Act, and accord and satisfaction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge was not clearly wrong in concluding that the judge hearing the motion for judgment should deal with any defects in the affidavit material, rather than having a Master review them in advance.

Costs of the proceedings to date were fixed at $45,000 on a partial indemnity basis payable to the respondents.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which found that the respondent chiropractor did not commit acts of professional misconduct relating to allegations of sexual abuse.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had dismissed the allegations based on credibility findings, preferring the respondent's evidence over the complainant's due to inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Divisional Court found that the Discipline Committee's decision was reasonable and did not rely on improper stereotypes, emphasizing the deference owed to specialized tribunals on findings of fact and credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which had set aside a direction from the Medical Review Committee requiring a paediatric respirologist to reimburse OHIP approximately $76,000 for 'General Assessments'.

The Board found that the definition of a general assessment did not require a specialist to perform a full bodily assessment, but rather an assessment of the relevant body parts affected by the patient's condition.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on the evidence.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the provincial government alleging that a child's death in a hospital emergency department was caused by government funding cuts and restructuring decisions.

The plaintiffs claimed negligence, abuse of public office, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The government appealed a motions judge's refusal to strike these claims.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the statement of claim, finding that the government owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiffs, the funding decisions were protected policy decisions, and the elements of abuse of public office and breach of fiduciary duty were not properly pleaded.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision dismissing a grievance concerning a teacher's teaching assignment upon her return from pregnancy leave.

The teacher, who previously taught Senior French, was assigned to teach Senior Science upon her return.

The arbitration board found no violation of the reinstatement or non-reprisal provisions of the Employment Standards Act, concluding that her 'position' was as a teacher at the school, not a specific subject assignment.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitration board's decision, finding it was reasonable given the annual nature of teaching assignments and the principal's statutory authority.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of records concerning a student's behaviour to the student's father.

The board argued the records were exempt under s. 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of an individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was not unreasonable for the adjudicator to conclude the board failed to discharge its burden of proof, given the lack of evidence of threatening behaviour by the father or psychiatric evidence regarding the son's propensity to carry out past threats.

The applicant school board brought a motion to exclude the public, specifically the requester, from the hearing of an application involving sealed materials.

The applicant argued that the requester's presence would render the application moot by revealing the subject matter and that referring to sealed materials without reading them would inhibit counsel's effectiveness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the normal practice of referring the court to sealed materials without reading them aloud is sufficient and does not inhibit counsel.

The court emphasized that access to the court is a super-ordinate value under s. 135 of the Courts of Justice Act and there was no serious risk of injustice.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award dismissing a grievance regarding holiday and overtime pay for work performed on Remembrance Day.

The arbitrator had concluded that there was an apparent contradiction between two articles of the collective agreement and interpreted them such that one applied to scheduled work and the other to unscheduled work.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's conclusion to be reasonable based on the record and dismissed the application, fixing costs at $5,000.

The appellant tenant appealed orders of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal concerning a residential property.

Prior to the appeal, the property was sold to a third party and the tenant relocated to a different property by agreement with the landlord.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal was moot because the tenant no longer inhabited the subject premises.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no order as to costs.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motions, the responding parties sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the moving parties' conduct, which included bringing unmeritorious motions, causing delays, and sending abusive and defamatory letters to the responding parties and their counsel, warranted sanction.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $35,000 plus GST and disbursements, applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable.