ODC 2003

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which upheld the cancellation of their tobacco production quota for alleged illegal sales.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions of both the Board and the Tribunal, finding that the Tribunal failed to apply the required standard of clear and convincing proof for quasi-criminal allegations and relied on insufficient evidence.

The Court also found a reasonable apprehension of bias because an adjudicator from the initial Board hearing testified as a prosecution witness before the Tribunal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $7,000 to the respondent.

The trial judge found that the respondent and the appellant Tony Chao had an oral agreement wherein Chao would hold $7,000 in trust for the respondent in a dormant corporate account.

The appellants argued that the respondent breached his fiduciary duties as an officer and lawyer for the corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample uncontradicted evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that this was a simple contract and no fiduciary duty was breached.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission revoking his horse racing licences for allegedly conspiring to fix a race.

The Commission's majority decision relied heavily on the uncorroborated evidence of an admitted liar who had made a deal to implicate the applicant, while ignoring exculpatory evidence and failing to explain why it disbelieved the applicant's witnesses.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's failure to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and penalty constituted a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought urgent leave to have a single judge of the Divisional Court hear an application for judicial review to halt an ongoing Law Society Discipline Committee hearing.

The applicant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction due to procedural defects in authorizing the prosecution.

The court dismissed the application as premature, applying the principle that courts should avoid piecemeal judicial review and allow administrative proceedings to run their full course before intervening.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which prohibited him from submitting accounts to OHIP for three years after he defrauded the public.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the College had jurisdiction to impose the billing prohibition under s. 51(2)(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Court held that the penalty was reasonable and entitled to deference, and rejected the argument that the prohibition was equivalent to an additional three-year suspension.

The landlord moved for an order requiring the tenant to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent into court pending the tenant's appeal of a tribunal order.

The tenant had received a 5% rent abatement but appealed seeking a further 5%, while conceding that rent was owing and withholding payment.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding it unjust for the tenant to remain in possession while arrears accumulated, and ordered the tenant to pay the arrears and ongoing rent into court, failing which the stay would be lifted and the appeal quashed.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal, which ordered the Registrar to grant a registration with conditions to the respondent.

The issue was whether the Tribunal applied the proper test in determining whether the Registrar's proposal to revoke registration should be carried out.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal correctly identified and applied the test from Brenner v. Ontario, which asks whether past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The court held that it could not interfere with the Tribunal's exercise of discretion unless it was clearly wrong, and dismissed the appeal.

The Township of Dymond brought an application for judicial review to set aside a municipal restructuring order made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that amalgamated it with two other towns.

The applicant argued that the Minister lacked jurisdiction under the former Municipal Act, breached natural justice by not holding a hearing, and violated the spirit of the legislation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory pre-conditions for the 'double majority' rule were met, rights had accrued before the new Act came into force, and there was no requirement for a hearing before the Minister issued the order.

The defendant appealed a Master's order dismissing an application to appoint a litigation guardian and brought a motion to stay the order pending appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the psychiatric evidence was vague and failed to establish a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs due to the defendant's history of procedural delay.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB) which changed the property tax class of five suite hotels from 'hotel' to 'residential/farm' and 'multi-residential'.

The ARB had concluded that the suite hotels did not meet the definition of a hotel under the Hotel Registration of Guests Act.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision because it failed to make findings on the evidence or provide an analysis of why a suite hotel is not included in the definition.

The court also found the issue to be of sufficient importance as it would impact numerous other suite hotels in Ontario.

The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal a costs award of $3,000 made against him by Pitt J. The application was filed six months after the order, well beyond the seven-day limit prescribed by Rule 62.02.

The Divisional Court refused to extend the time due to the inordinate and unexplained delay.

The court also noted there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the original costs award and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, awarding $2,000 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant, a real estate broker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) that found him guilty of professional misconduct for advertising properties without consent.

The applicant argued that RECO did not exercise a statutory power of decision and alleged bias in the disciplinary process.

The Divisional Court held that RECO's disciplinary bodies do exercise a statutory power of decision subject to judicial review.

However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, as the applicant was provided full disclosure and a fair opportunity to be heard.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent employee was constructively dismissed and awarding her damages.

The respondent, a director, had refused to accept a corporate restructuring that required her to report to a newly appointed assistant vice-president rather than the senior vice-president.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in construing the altered reporting obligation as a transfer of responsibility.

Applying an objective test, the court found that the structural change did not constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract, and therefore, there was no constructive dismissal.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming the assessed value of its two senior citizen apartment buildings.

The appellant argued the Board erred by relying on actual rents that included fees for non-realty services rather than fair market rents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Board made no error of law and that the appellant failed to discharge its onus under section 60(1) of the Assessment Act to prove the assessment was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved claims of conspiracy and unlawful interference against the defendants, who acted as opposing counsel in a prior oppression proceeding that settled.

The court granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(ii), finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision due to a failure to provide sufficient reasons addressing whether the action was frivolous and vexatious, and determining the issue was of sufficient public importance.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting an eviction for landlord's own use.

A previous application had been dismissed because the landlord was a corporation, which cannot occupy a residential unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator on the second application erred in law by failing to apply res judicata and failing to consider whether the individual respondent was a privy of the corporate landlord.

The adjudicator also failed to weigh evidence of bad faith.

The eviction order was set aside.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering her to pay $3,184.59 to the respondent purchasers for defects discovered after closing a real estate transaction.

The defects included a cracked water pipe that the appellant had concealed, leaks in the swimming pool covered by a surviving warranty, and a missing pool pump that the appellant had stored without notifying the purchasers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact.

The applicant, a teacher with multiple sclerosis, sought judicial review of the Human Rights Commission's decisions refusing to refer her complaints of discrimination and reprisal to a Board of Inquiry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decisions were not patently unreasonable as there was ample evidence to support its conclusions regarding the school board's accommodation efforts and the union's representation.

The Court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, including an argument based on the doctrine of legitimate expectations.

The applicant, Universal Settlements International, Inc., sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision upholding an investigation order.

The applicant, which sold viatical settlement purchase programs, argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was neither a reporting issuer nor a registrant under the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Commission has broad statutory powers to investigate matters it considers expedient for the due administration of securities law and the protection of the public interest, regardless of the applicant's registration status.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal confirming the Registrar's proposal to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice and that the tribunal erred in its factual findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing was appropriate, hearsay evidence was permitted under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, and there was ample evidence to support the revocation.