Michael A. Penny

The oversight council brought a motion to seal and redact the record of proceedings in an application for judicial review brought by the applicant.

The proposed redactions aimed to protect the identities of witnesses and deceased individuals.

The Divisional Court adjourned the motion, finding it would be contrary to the due administration of justice to proceed without giving notice to the potentially affected non-parties whose privacy interests were at stake.

Following the release of its decision allowing the Crown's appeal and setting aside a class action certification order, the Divisional Court entertained post-decision submissions from the respondent based on two new Court of Appeal decisions regarding state liability in negligence.

The court concluded that the new decisions applied settled law and did not alter its previous reasoning.

The court amended its previous disposition to clarify that while the appeal is allowed and the certification order is set aside, the underlying action is not dismissed, leaving that issue for the parties to address below.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Drug Benefit Program to revoke its billing privileges.

The Executive Officer found the pharmacy had made over $87,000 in unsubstantiated billings and over $62,000 in improper billings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Executive Officer's decision was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness.

The applicant school board sought judicial review to quash clauses 10(2)(i) and (ii) of O. Reg. 20/98 under the Education Act as ultra vires.

The impugned regulations restrict the availability of education development charges (EDCs) to circumstances where a school board does not have board-wide surplus capacity.

The applicant argued this undermined the purpose of the EDC regime, which is to ensure growth pays for growth.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulations were consistent with the statutory grant of authority and the broader scheme of the Education Act, which includes strict financial oversight and efficient use of education funds.

Three appeals were heard together to determine whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for filing appeals set out in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court held that s. 7 does grant the LAT jurisdiction to extend the s. 56 limitation period, as the time limit is fixed 'under an Act' (the Insurance Act).

The Court dismissed the insurers' appeals challenging the LAT's jurisdiction and its exercise of discretion to grant extensions, finding no errors of law.

In the third appeal, where the adjudicator had found no jurisdiction, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the LAT to consider the extension request.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision directing the Registrar not to revoke the respondent's funeral preplanner licence.

The respondent had misused client funds, but the LAT found she did not personally benefit and her past conduct did not give reason to believe she would fail to act with honesty and integrity in the future.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT made no reviewable errors in its application of section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, and properly considered the respondent's motivations.

The appellant grandparent appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to be added as a party to child protection proceedings concerning his grandchild.

The appellant argued the motion judge failed to apply the five-part test for adding parties and failed to give reasons for denying alternative relief for participant status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge substantively considered the relevant factors and correctly concluded that adding the appellant was not in the child's best interests, as it would unduly prolong proceedings and the appellant lacked a viable competing plan.

The court also held that the appellant did not meet the statutory precondition of providing continuous care for six months to qualify for participant status.

The appellant property owner entered into a contract with the respondent builder for the construction of a luxury home, paying a $3.8 million non-refundable deposit.

After the appellant failed to pay over $10.4 million in interim invoices, the respondent obtained summary judgment.

The appellant appealed solely on the issue of whether the deposit should be credited against the judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deposit was intended to secure completion of the contract and was forfeit due to the appellant's breach, rather than acting as a prepayment for interim invoices.

Powerhouse Corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision granting it a liquor licence but imposing a condition prohibiting outdoor amplified music at its Cabana pool bar.

The City of Toronto cross-appealed, arguing the licence should have been refused entirely because Powerhouse's application was an abusive attempt to circumvent existing noise conditions on the venue's prior licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals.

The Court held the LAT correctly interpreted its limited jurisdiction under s. 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act and properly applied an objective standard to assess noise disturbances affecting Toronto Island residents.

The Court also rejected Powerhouse's procedural fairness arguments regarding an incomplete hearing transcript and alleged lack of notice.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Markham's alleged decisions to plan and approve a four-lane collector road crossing protected Greenbelt lands.

The City argued the application was premature because the environmental assessment and planning processes were ongoing and no final location for the road had been determined.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative processes until they are complete.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The moving party brought an unopposed motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Tranquilli dated March 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, as no cost summaries were filed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party only submitted a brief letter in response.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering termination of their tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The appellants argued they were owners under a rent-to-own agreement, not tenants.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that the notice of appeal disclosed no error of law, as the interpretation of the agreement was a question of mixed fact and law.

The court also noted the appellants' unexplained delay in perfecting the appeal and their failure to pay over $30,000 in rent arrears.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from endorsements refusing his requests to adjourn an upcoming trial.

The court directed the moving party to serve and upload his materials by a specific deadline.

The moving party failed to upload any materials by the deadline.

Given the imminent trial date, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Law Society of Ontario and several individuals.

Before a summary hearing was scheduled, the applicant requested early document production, which the Tribunal's Registrar deferred as premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interim decision.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was manifestly premature as the Tribunal had not made a final decision on document production and no exceptional circumstances warranted early court intervention.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to post an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for a proposed trailer park's sewage works on the Environmental Registry for public comment.

The Minister relied on s. 32(1)(a) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which exempts proposals from posting if they are a step towards implementing a project approved by a tribunal after affording an opportunity for public participation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Minister's decision was reasonable, as the prior Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the trailer park development provided a sufficient opportunity for public participation concerning the sewage works.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a finding of professional misconduct and a penalty decision by the College's Discipline Committee, which included a three-month suspension and a $135,000 costs award.

The misconduct related to the misdiagnosis and improper treatment of a dog's fractured paw.

On appeal, the appellant raised several procedural and constitutional arguments, including allegations of bias, unconstitutional by-laws, and failure to provide reasons by the Complaints Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law, and upheld the costs award as reasonable given the appellant's conduct during the proceedings.

The union applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's supplementary decision regarding the termination of employee benefits during the discipline process.

The arbitrator found that the employer's obligation to continue providing benefits to employees grieving their dismissal up to step three of the grievance procedure only lasted until the expiry of the collective agreement and the statutory freeze.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's decision was based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion to adjourn or stay an upcoming appeal pending the outcome of an application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal might find the subject matter of the underlying action to be within its exclusive jurisdiction, which would preclude the Superior Court from enforcing a settlement of that action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue on appeal—whether a legally enforceable settlement agreement was reached—was distinct from the merits of the claim and likely outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court also found that the respondents failed to bring their jurisdictional challenge and request for a stay on a timely basis.