ODC 2005

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of an order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal requiring her to vacate the premises.

The tenant had orally agreed to move out but subsequently changed her mind and remained in possession, prompting the landlord to obtain an ex parte order.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal raised no question of law as required by s. 196 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, noting that s. 188 dictates substance over form.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the certificate of stay was set aside.

The appellant abandoned an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Small Claims Court, which is not permitted under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents sought costs for the abandoned appeal.

The court found the appeal was a stalling tactic with no legal basis and awarded the respondents costs of $1,687.57 for legal advice and $300.00 for attendance.

The applicants, foster parents of a child since birth, sought judicial review of a Director's decision confirming the Halton Children's Aid Society's decision to place the child for adoption with another family.

The applicants argued the process was procedurally unfair due to excessive delay and the admission of late expert evidence, and that the removal of the child violated their section 7 Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the delay was necessary to determine the child's best interests, the applicants had no section 7 rights as foster parents, and the Director's decision was reasonable based on the evidence of the child's attachment to the adoptive family.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct involved nine separate incidents of careless use of a firearm and one incident of showing a scrotum piercing to a female officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer had considered the appropriate factors, including the gravity of the misconduct, employment history, and rehabilitation prospects, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range.

The applicant police association sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the employer's policy of transferring disabled uniformed officers into civilian bargaining unit positions to accommodate them.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding it unreasonable and incorrect in law.

The Court held that the arbitrator failed to properly apply the individualized duty to accommodate, as he did not first consider whether the specific officers could be accommodated within their own bargaining unit without undue hardship before infringing on the civilian collective agreement rights.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing his complaint against his union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration, and denying reconsideration.

The OLRB had dismissed the complaint due to a 16-year delay and prejudice to the respondents, rejecting the applicant's medical explanation.

The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decisions were not patently unreasonable and dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias and Charter discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding no just cause for the respondent's termination and extending the notice period by two months.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of no just cause, as the appellant failed to show the trial judge was clearly wrong.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the judgment amount by one-third because the trial judge erred in extending the notice period without evidence that the termination prolonged or aggravated the respondent's depression.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs of $42,000 and $15,000 to $22,500 respectively.

The respondents argued the claims were excessive.

The Divisional Court considered the complexity of the Human Rights Code issues and the unusual circumstance of the Tribunal accidentally losing the record, which increased preparation time.

However, noting the similarity of interests between the two appellants and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable to the losing party, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale of $10,000 to each appellant.

The respondents sought costs of $30,497.12 after successfully defending an application brought by the self-represented applicant.

The applicant argued that no costs should be payable because the application raised an important public issue regarding the electoral system and the respondents had failed to respond to settlement offers.

The court declined to award costs to the respondents, finding that the application was necessary despite being unsuccessful, and noting the respondents' failure to engage in settlement discussions.

The defendant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sued the provincial government in negligence after the deceased contracted West Nile Virus, alleging the government failed to reasonably implement its prevention plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail, as the relevant public health legislation conferred sufficient powers on the government to potentially ground a private law duty of care at the operational level.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision finding oppression and ordering the valuation of the deceased's shares at fair market value without a minority discount.

The appellants argued that a draft shareholders' agreement, which valued shares at net book value, should dictate the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that there was no binding shareholders' agreement because one shareholder had not signed it, as required by s. 108 of the Business Corporations Act.

The Court also agreed that the evidence did not support the appellants' claim regarding reasonable expectations, as the parties had not abided by the draft agreement and were negotiating a new one based on fair market value prior to the deceased's death.

The appellant sought costs of approximately $8,900 for an appeal and a leave motion regarding the timing of payment of costs ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The Divisional Court noted that the appeal was brought for strategic purposes to force the respondents to pay costs before trial or forfeit their right to proceed.

Finding that the appeal was entirely unnecessary from any other perspective, the court declined to award costs to any party.

The applicant developer sought judicial review of the Minister's ongoing planning process under the Ontario Planning Development Act, 1994, alleging improper limitations on the investigation stage and lack of meaningful public participation.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that judicial review should generally await the conclusion of administrative proceedings.

The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the planning process was complete.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) that upheld the Investment Dealers Association of Canada's (IDA) disciplinary actions against them.

The IDA had fined the appellants and terminated their membership for failing to provide documents during an investigation into alleged principal trading in an error account.

The appellants argued the IDA lacked jurisdiction, its by-laws violated the Charter, and the investigation was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the IDA is not a government entity subject to the Charter, its investigative powers are valid under the regulatory scheme, and its disciplinary process and penalties were reasonable.

The applicant, a child with severe autism, sought judicial review of a Special Education Tribunal decision affirming his placement in a Primary Autism Pilot Project rather than an Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding the requested IBI program was medical treatment rather than education, and in failing to apply the Charter and Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence that the pilot project was appropriate for the applicant's needs.

The applicant teacher was acquitted of criminal charges relating to alleged sexual misconduct with a former student in 1991.

The Ontario College of Teachers subsequently brought disciplinary proceedings against him under 1997 regulations.

The discipline committee refused the applicant's request for an adjournment, proceeded in his absence, admitted the criminal trial transcript and judge's obiter findings without adequate reasons, and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the committee breached natural justice by arbitrarily refusing the adjournment and failing to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Court also held that applying the 1997 regulations to 1991 conduct offended the rule against retrospective application of legislation.

The Toronto Police Services Board applied for judicial review of an arbitration award that ordered compensation to a police officer whose promotion was deferred due to pending disciplinary charges that were later withdrawn.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, which balanced the employer's right to defer promotion with the officer's right to be made whole upon exoneration, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission that set aside a decision of the IDA District Council and substituted a harsher penalty for his involvement in facilitating a market manipulation scheme.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission applied the correct standard of review, properly concluded that the District Council misapprehended material evidence, and reasonably substituted its view of the public interest in imposing a severe penalty including a fine and suspension.

The applicant doctor brought a motion before the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a motions judge's order.

The motions judge had dismissed the applicant's entire judicial review application, even though only a motion for an injunction and mandatory order regarding a College investigation was before him.

The Divisional Court agreed that the motions judge was correct to refuse the injunction and mandatory order, but amended the formal order to clarify that only the motion, not the underlying judicial review application, was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government.

The action alleged negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office arising from the government's decision to discontinue entering into Special Needs Agreements for profoundly disabled children.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding it was plain and obvious the negligence claim could not succeed.

The court held that the statement of claim disclosed arguable causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.