ODC 2003

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (ORHT) dismissing his request for a review of a rent default order.

The tenant had missed the original hearing due to misdirection by ORHT staff, who told him the hearing would be postponed.

The Vice-Chair acknowledged this but placed the onus on the tenant to prove the original order was inappropriate.

The Divisional Court held this was a jurisdictional error and a denial of natural justice, as the tenant had a right to a hearing in the first instance.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a hearing de novo.

The appellant pharmacists were shareholders and directors of a corporation convicted of income tax evasion related to undeclared volume rebates from drug companies.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists found them guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in conduct relevant to the practice of pharmacy that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

On appeal, the Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that the appellants' participation in the tax evasion scheme reflected adversely on the profession and constituted conduct relevant to the practice of pharmacy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which denied its request to be reclassified to the manufacturing rate applicable to a company that owned 50% of its shares.

The Divisional Court held that the tribunal, as a specialized body protected by a privative clause, was entitled to curial deference.

The court found that the tribunal's conclusion that the companies were not 'associated' under the Act was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant private school appealed a trial judgment awarding $8,800 in damages to the respondents for the expulsion of their eight-year-old daughter without notice or a hearing.

The school argued the trial judge based the decision on a breach of an implied contractual term of natural justice, which was not pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations of procedural unfairness were central to the dispute from the beginning and were sufficiently pleaded in the context of a breach of fiduciary duty, meaning the school knew the case it had to meet.

The appellant landlord appealed a tribunal Member's order awarding monetary amounts and a fine to the tenant, arguing lack of evidence, lack of a fair hearing, and lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant chose not to order a transcript of the hearing, and the tapes were subsequently destroyed.

The Divisional Court held that without a transcript, it could not review the evidentiary foundation for the monetary awards.

The court also upheld the $1,000 fine against the landlord, finding it was within the tribunal's guidelines for deterring malicious conduct.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a two-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario for serving an intoxicated customer.

The appellant argued there was no evidence to support the finding and that the Board's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's conclusions and no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay six months of statutory accident benefits as a lump sum and ongoing weekly payments as a term of adjourning the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order, noting that such payments can be ordered to respond to the impact of an adjournment or as part of the insurer's duty of utmost good faith.

The court held that the scale of the payment was not a matter of general importance and refused leave to appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding the discharge of an employee for sleeping on the job.

The employee was subject to a Last Chance Agreement that permitted immediate discharge for sleeping at work.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably disregarded medical evidence suggesting the employee suffered from sleep apnea and circadian rhythm disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator carefully considered the evidence and reasonably concluded the sleep apnea only became significant after termination.

The arbitrator's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, revoking his license, and imposing a $25,000 costs award.

The misconduct stemmed from his failure to supervise an EEG clinic where a technician infected numerous patients with Hepatitis B. The Divisional Court upheld the misconduct findings but found the penalty of license revocation unreasonable, as the appellant posed no risk practicing solely as a neurologist.

The court substituted a two-year suspension and a lifetime ban from acting as a medical director, while upholding the costs award.

The defendant insurer appealed an order granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction that required it to pay periodic disability benefits to the plaintiff pending trial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motions judge erred in concluding the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The Court held that social stigma, loss of dignity, and potential loss of residence were not supported by the evidence as constituting irreparable harm in this context, and that the policy did not provide for ongoing future benefits without proof of continuing disability.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $12,203.73 for unpaid commissions and $28,400.00 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding on the merits, concluding there was ample evidence to support the commission entitlement.

However, the court found the trial judge erred in the costs award, noting the importance of proportionality and reasonableness under the simplified rules.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the trial costs reduced to $10,000.00.

The appellants appealed an order of the Master dismissing their motion to extend the time for service of the statement of claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred by focusing entirely on the length of delay and the expiry of the limitation period rather than whether the respondents were prejudiced.

Applying the principles from Chiarelli v. Wiens, the court found no evidence of prejudice to the respondents, as their insurers were involved early, copies of the claim were mailed, and medical reports were provided.

The appeal was allowed and the time for service was extended.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $6,000 in damages and $1,000 in costs for a breach of contract regarding motor vehicle repairs.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by rendering a decision without receiving the appellant's written submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a reasonable time (six months) to submit written arguments but failed to do so, and therefore was not denied a substantive right.

The court also upheld the damages and costs awards, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal licensing committee's decision to refuse the renewal of her body rub parlour licence due to by-law violations.

The applicant argued that the hearing lacked natural justice because the committee consisted solely of elected officials and relied on uncorroborated evidence from police and by-law officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory framework explicitly confided the decision to the municipality itself, the hearing was procedurally fair, and the committee's reliance on uncontradicted eyewitness evidence was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant employer association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its application for final offer selection to amend a collective agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the application and was required to choose one of the two final offers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the pragmatic and functional approach, the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was subject to a patently unreasonable standard of review.

The court held it was not patently unreasonable for the arbitrator to conclude that the existence of a competitive disadvantage had to be verified before an offer could be selected, and that the arbitrator's factual findings were supported by evidence.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding the seizure of a leased vehicle.

The respondent had signed a personal guarantee for a corporate automobile lease covering multiple vehicles.

The trial judge found in favour of the respondent, imposing an implied obligation on the appellant to provide notice before seizing the vehicle.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred by ignoring the clear and unambiguous terms of the guarantee and considering the respondent's subjective intentions.

The appeal was granted and the trial decision was overturned.

The moving party sought to set aside an order of a single judge refusing leave to appeal a substantial costs award made by the Ontario Municipal Board.

The moving party argued that the costs award penalized them for exercising their right to a hearing de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge did not decline jurisdiction or apply a wrong principle in refusing leave to appeal, but rather considered the argument on its merits and rejected it.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its policy grievance.

The grievance alleged that the respondent union violated the collective agreement by maintaining that bargaining unit employees were not required to work on paid holidays without their consent.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was supported by the contractual language.

Although the arbitrator erred in referencing the 'no contracting out' provision of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the court concluded that this was not the basis for his decision and upheld his findings as reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed three Small Claims Court judgments regarding vandalism to their vehicle, trespass on yacht club property, and a lien on their boat.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the Occupiers' Liability Act did not apply to third-party vandalism, that nominal damages for trespass were appropriate, and that the Repair and Storage Liens Act applied to boats stored in water.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the costs awarded in the lien action, finding the trial judge exceeded the limits under the Small Claims Court Rules.

The applicants brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the decisions of a single judge, who had refused to set aside earlier orders dismissing their motions for leave to appeal due to their counsel's failure to attend.

The applicants argued that their counsel had a scheduling conflict and received insufficient notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge applied the correct test under Rule 37.14 and properly concluded that counsel's failure to attend was a choice rather than the result of accident, mistake, or insufficient notice.

The court also upheld the single judge's costs awards.