ODC 2005

The appellant appealed a Board decision suspending its liquor licence for 14 days due to multiple infractions, including serving alcohol after hours, permitting drunkenness, and failing to clear signs of service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, its factual conclusions, or its penalty.

The Court also held that the Board was not functus officio when it issued an amending order to address an issue it had inadvertently omitted, as it was completing its statutory task.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision granting minor variances to the respondents for the construction of a new home.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the OMB erred in law by failing to properly apply the four-part test for minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Court held that the OMB unreasonably focused almost exclusively on the impact of the variances, neglecting to adequately consider their size, desirability, and whether they maintained the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and official plan.

The matter was remitted to a different panel of the OMB.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing a motion to set aside a default judgment of $15,000.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 19(1)(a)(i) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the order appealed from was not an order 'for a single payment'.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Act.

The landlords appealed an order of the Tribunal regarding the calculation of rent.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to attribute the cost of renovations made by the tenants to the amount of rent payable, as defined in the Tenant Protection Act.

Despite the lack of a transcript due to an inaudible recording, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and fixed the legal monthly rent at $3,000, requiring the tenants to pay arrears.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board suspending its liquor licence for 14 days due to multiple infractions, including serving alcohol after hours, permitting drunkenness, and failing to clear signs of service.

The appellant argued the Board erred by refusing an adjournment, making unreasonable factual findings, and issuing an amending order when it was functus officio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of natural justice in the adjournment refusal, sufficient evidence to support the factual findings, and that the Board was not functus officio when completing its statutory task by addressing an issue it had inadvertently missed.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable.

The applicants, Boeing and Bombardier, sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade to disclose three agreements relating to the purchase and sale of the de Havilland business.

The applicants argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the third-party information exemption in s. 17 of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the complex, multi-party agreements were the product of negotiation and did not contain information 'supplied' to the Ministry by the applicants.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring a grievor, a registered nurse returning from a medical leave for physical surgery, to provide answers to questions regarding her mental health.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, as there was no basis to require a psychological assessment given that the grievor's absence was for physical, not mental, reasons.

The application for judicial review was granted and the arbitrator's award was set aside.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to close the Collège des Grands Lacs, a francophone college.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to the applicants' undue delay of 29 months in perfecting the application, which caused significant prejudice.

In the alternative, the court found that the Minister did not breach the unwritten constitutional principle of protection of minorities, as the college was failing and alternative francophone education was arranged.

The court also held that the Minister had the statutory authority to close the college and the decision was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant brought a motion to vary a stay order regarding the revocation of its liquor licence, seeking permission to open its back patio during the summer.

The respondent Commission opposed the motion and brought a countermotion to lift the stay, alleging the appellant breached the conditions of the stay.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the appellant's request to vary the conditions was not justified and that the Commission failed to prove the alleged breaches.

The court also ordered the parties to expedite the appeal.

The applicants sought to quash the Minister's decision to close the Land Registry Office in Welland, a designated area under the French Language Services Act, and relocate its services to St. Catharines.

They argued the decision violated the Act and the constitutional principle of respect for and protection of minorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Act requires the provision of services to a designated area but does not prohibit relocating the office outside the area, provided the services remain available.

The court also dismissed as premature a related application by a seniors' residence seeking to administer its own waiting list for subsidized housing to preserve its francophone character.

The applicant challenged the Minister's decision to close the Land Registry and Land Titles offices in Welland and relocate them to St. Catharines.

The applicant argued the Minister lacked the statutory authority to enact the regulations carrying out the closures.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that amendments to the Registry Act and provisions of the Land Titles Act clearly authorized the Minister to consolidate the offices within the upper-tier municipality of Niagara.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting a non-suit and dismissing his claims for false arrest, unlawful search, and Charter breaches against the police.

The appellant had been arrested for possession of property obtained by crime after police observed him with multiple bicycles and parts late at night.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded that the appellant's own evidence established the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, meaning no prima facie case was made out.

The appellants appealed from an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs had previously been found to have breached their fiduciary duty in a prior action and subsequently commenced this action alleging fraud and conspiracy against their former adversaries and their lawyers.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the amended statement of claim was an unauthorized abuse of process, the plaintiff lacked capacity to represent the estate, and the action was a collateral attack on the prior judgment barred by res judicata.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society applied for judicial review of a Director's decision under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act to review the Society's refusal to place Crown ward children with extended family members for adoption.

The Divisional Court quashed the application, holding that the Director's decision to conduct a review was not a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act because it did not decide or prescribe anyone's legal rights.

In the alternative, the majority found the Director's decision to be reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that found she suffered no compensable damages from a motor vehicle accident because her injuries did not meet the Insurance Act threshold.

In supplementary reasons, the Divisional Court addressed the appellant's claim for past and future loss of income, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that her inability to work was not caused by the accident.

The appeal remained dismissed, and costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,000 payable to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly interpret and apply all three subparagraphs of section 4(1) of the Act.

The court held that the Tribunal improperly stopped its analysis after finding no 'substantial' impairment under subparagraph (a), without considering the impact of the impairment on activities of daily living under subparagraph (b).

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay outstanding legal fees to his former solicitors and dismissing his counterclaim for an assessment of those accounts.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider the court's inherent jurisdiction to refer accounts for assessment within twelve months of delivery, especially given the solicitors' failure to advise the client of his right to an assessment.

The summary judgment was set aside and the accounts were referred to an Assessment Officer.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the Law Society's dismissal of his application for readmission.

The Law Society panels had found that the appellant met most criteria for readmission but failed to show he had purged his guilt and was extremely unlikely to re-offend, primarily because he continued to deny that he intentionally misappropriated funds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the panels erred in law by effectively making an admission of guilt a precondition for reinstatement, contrary to established legal principles.

The Court ordered the appellant's readmission, remitting the matter to a Hearing Panel solely to determine appropriate conditions.

The tenants appealed an eviction order issued by the Tribunal based on noise complaints.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was based entirely on findings of fact regarding the tenants' interference with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants.

As appeals under the Tenant Protection Act are confined to questions of law, the court quashed the appeal, reinstated the eviction order, and set aside the automatic stay.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed their request for an extension of time to file a Request for Review.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which constituted a denial of procedural fairness and an error of law.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to a different Member for a new hearing.