Michael R. Dambrot

The appellant builder appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision awarding the respondent homeowners $11,234 to replace ceramic tiles that did not comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The parties consented to an order setting aside the Tribunal's decision and substituting an award of $4,000 plus costs.

The Divisional Court approved the settlement, noting that the Tribunal erred in effectively ordering specific performance rather than assessing damages based on the floor's useful life or the cost of stiffening it, as required by prior jurisprudence.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board pursuant to s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness at the hearing because she may not have understood her role and failed to fully participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Vice Chair accorded the appellant a full opportunity to present evidence and examine witnesses, and that she was assisted at the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent tenants.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding he was not an authorized occupant or tenant of a Toronto Community Housing Corporation unit.

The appellant alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, spousal status, and disability, as well as bias by the Board Member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was fully supported by the evidence, there was no discrimination or bias, and the appeal improperly raised factual issues rather than questions of law.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which allowed the insured to rescind a settlement agreement.

The Director's Delegate found that the Settlement Disclosure Notice did not properly describe the benefits available to the self-employed insured and was improperly signed by the insurer's counsel rather than hand-signed by the insurer.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate's decision regarding the inadequate description of benefits was reasonable, as the notice failed to account for the insured's self-employment losses.

Although the court found the Director's Delegate's reasoning regarding the signature requirement to be unreasonable, the application for judicial review was dismissed based on the inadequate benefits description.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada's Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's finding of professional misconduct and a 30-day suspension.

The misconduct involved five incidents of incivility and discrimination against a client.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Appeal Panel's decision reasonable, including its conclusion that the Hearing Panel had authority under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to correct its penalty order.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on an appeal from a decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada Appeal Panel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the transcript of the appellant's examination in a civil suit against his former counsel was not relevant to any issue on appeal, and his affidavit regarding the impact of the discipline and his subsequent conduct was not determinative of the reasonableness of the penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of two 2004 decisions denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

He had failed to appeal the decisions to the Social Benefits Tribunal within the statutory time limit.

In 2008, he reapplied with new medical evidence and was granted benefits, but sought to have the grant made retroactive to 2004.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review due to the applicant's five-year delay and his failure to pursue his statutory right of appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision setting aside a Master's order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The court found that the lower court's brief decision was based on well-settled law and did not raise an issue of significance meriting the attention of the Divisional Court.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board decisions ordering the issuance of demolition permits for thirteen buildings.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the respondents filed their appeal after the time limit in section 3 of the City of Toronto Act, 1985 had expired.

The Board had found this time limit conflicted with the Planning Act and assumed jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdictional decision, holding that the two statutes could co-exist without conflict.

However, the Court found no reason to doubt the Board's decision on the merits.

Leave to appeal was granted solely on the jurisdictional question.

The tenant was evicted following a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy.

He brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the decision and for an order permitting him to return to the rented premises pending the appeal, citing language barriers as the reason for missing the deadline.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time and permitted the tenant to return to the premises, subject to conditions including expediting the appeal and paying all rent on time.

The Town of Oakville appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that stayed a zoning by-law against the respondents, who were growing crops on contaminated former refinery lands zoned industrial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby denying natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court held as a matter of law that 'farming' is a land use, not a 'normal farm practice', and the Farming and Food Production Protection Act cannot be used to introduce a new agricultural use on land where farming is prohibited by a valid zoning by-law.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved the officer issuing but failing to serve six traffic tickets, resulting in an innocent man being wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for five days.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, upholding the findings of misconduct, and concluding that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the egregious nature of the officer's actions and lack of rehabilitative potential.

Air Canada sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that directed it to offer 90 denied Voluntary Separation Program (VSP) applications to eligible employees.

Air Canada argued the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by modifying the collective agreement and interfering with management rights.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the arbitrator was properly interpreting the quantitative language of the Memorandum of Understanding, which required the maximum number of VSPs to be granted.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a $128,000 costs order made against him by the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors following findings of professional misconduct.

He argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the quantum was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Health Professions Procedural Code's costs provisions prevailed and that the quantum was reasonable given the length and complexity of the hearing, the serious nature of the misconduct, and the appellant's refusal to admit wrongdoing.

The appellant appealed a costs order of the Discipline Committee and brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the appellant was attempting an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying merits decision, which had already been upheld on appeal.

Furthermore, the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission as it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

The Toronto Police Association (TPA) brought an application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to conduct a public inquiry under s. 25 of the Police Services Act into various matters, including a dispute between officers at a gas pump.

The Commission had previously conducted a screening review and declined to hold a formal inquiry, but made several recommendations under s. 22(1)(e.2) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision not to investigate the TPA's complaints while recommending an investigation into a related human rights complaint was entirely reasonable and within its broad statutory discretion.

The Court also noted that mandamus was not available as a remedy on the facts of the case.

The applicant, a child with autism, sought judicial review of a decision to discharge her from a regional Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) program.

The program's clinical director determined after a 12-month assessment that the therapy was not resulting in cognitive and learning improvements.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and the process lacked procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the clinical decision was reasonable and the applicant was afforded procedural fairness through evaluations, meetings, and an independent review mechanism.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action against his real estate lawyer for professional negligence and breach of contract arising from a four-day delay in closing a home purchase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the delay was caused by the appellant's failure to obtain fire insurance, which prevented the tendering of mortgage funds.

The court also rejected the appellant's claim of a denial of due process, finding the trial judge's interventions during the hearing were appropriate and did not demonstrate bias.

The landlord brought a motion to set aside the tenants' notice of appeal from an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the Board erred by failing to consider their efforts to pay rent with cheques that were ultimately dishonoured.

The Divisional Court granted the landlord's motion and quashed the appeal, finding that the tenants' ground of appeal did not raise a question of law and had no arguable merit.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the landlord.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's refusal to declare a mistrial and recuse himself from a statutory accident benefits arbitration.

The applicant argued that the arbitrator's exposure to settlement offers and off-the-record discussions during an emotional outburst by the self-represented respondent created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's knowledge of settlement information did not automatically mandate a mistrial and that his handling of the situation did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.