Nancy L. Backhouse

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time on consent but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $1,900.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of McGee J. dated March 6, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties did not provide a costs outline.

The appellant sought to quash a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a reconsideration decision, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the appellant was given notice of the hearing, did not request an in-person hearing or accommodation, and did not raise procedural unfairness in his reconsideration request.

The court noted that the decisions do not bar the appellant's claims for attendant care benefits or a special award relating to the timing of non-earner benefits payments.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision dismissing its application to remove a second dog from the respondent's unit.

The CAT found that the respondent's partner required the service dog as an accommodation for a disability under the Human Rights Code, and awarded $15,000 in damages for discriminatory treatment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the CAT did not err in law in its accommodation framework and did not breach procedural fairness in awarding damages or a common expense credit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review and appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for attendant care benefits.

The LAT found that the applicant failed to prove his family members sustained an economic loss in providing care, as required by s. 3(7)(e) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant conceded the LAT correctly interpreted the provision but argued the requirement conflicted with the consumer protection mandate of the legislation and produced an absurd result.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that there was no ambiguity in the legislation and that rewriting the statute to achieve a perceived equitable result was not a justiciable issue.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they committed securities fraud, unregistered trading, and illegal distribution, and imposing sanctions including a joint and several disgorgement order of approximately $8.7 million.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the Commission refused to adjourn the merits hearing and restricted cross-examination, and that the joint and several disgorgement order was demonstrably unfit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the adjournment refusal or hearing conduct, and holding that the Commission's broad public interest discretion under the Securities Act permitted joint and several disgorgement orders.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application.

The applicant had alleged that his termination during his probationary period was based on sex discrimination and reprisal.

The HRTO found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no evidence connecting his termination to a protected ground.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision was logical and justified.

The applicant physiotherapist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision.

The ICRC had investigated a patient complaint of inappropriate touching and, while unable to determine the truth of the allegations, required the applicant to complete a remedial education program and receive a caution due to poor record-keeping and boundary concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions reasonable, noting that the remedies were educational rather than punitive and were supported by the evidentiary record.

The applicant, a family-owned trucking school, sought judicial review of the Superintendent of Career Colleges' decision to immediately forfeit its $97,000 security bond without notice, following proposals to suspend and refuse to renew its registration.

The Divisional Court found the forfeiture decision was both procedurally unfair and unreasonable, as the Superintendent failed to provide notice or consider the specific circumstances of the case before exercising her discretion.

Given the Licence Appeal Tribunal's subsequent findings that the applicant had no history of non-compliance and the investigation was tainted by confirmation bias, the court quashed the decision and ordered the return of the funds.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director, which confirmed that his complaints of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct against a police officer were unsubstantiated.

The Divisional Court found the Director's decision unreasonable because it relied on a fundamental misapprehension of evidence regarding the timeline of the alleged assault and failed to address the applicant's central argument that video evidence proved the officer had lied.

The application was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Complaints Director for further review.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding municipality in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant sought an order compelling the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to issue a decision on his discrimination complaint, which had been pending since March 2021.

Before the application was heard, the tribunal released its decision dismissing the complaint due to delay.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the application despite it being moot, alleging irreparable harm from the delay.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding it focused on the specific circumstances of the complaint rather than broader issues of public importance.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved costs to the appeal.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court ordered that no costs be awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Richard J. dated December 18, 2024.

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 the lower court judge dated November 15, 2024.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding parties.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated two employees terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The arbitrator had ruled that an employer can never discipline an employee for refusing to consent to medical treatment.

The Divisional Court found this conclusion unreasonable, as it failed to balance the hospital's duty to protect patients against the employees' privacy interests in the context of a pandemic.

However, the court upheld the arbitrator's ultimate decision to reinstate the employees, noting that terminating them after only two weeks of unpaid leave was premature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant sought to rescind a 2000 settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure obligations under Regulation 664 by not providing a commuted value for Attendant Care Benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the rescission claim, finding the insurer was not required to provide a commuted value for benefits that were never claimed.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not an error of law or unreasonable to find the settlement valid where the missing commuted value was for an unclaimed benefit and could not have reasonably affected the decision to settle.