ODC 2008

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing an application for a rent reduction.

The Board had found that the rent applied only to the house and that the garage was provided free of charge.

The Divisional Court held this was a palpable and overriding error amounting to an error of law, as the lease explicitly included access to the garage and backyard.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing to determine if an abatement was appropriate.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for an assault that occurred during a recreational hockey game.

The trial judge found that the appellant deliberately punched the respondent in the face after the referee had stopped play, causing dental injuries.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent did not assume the risk of a deliberate, unprovoked attack and that the liability waiver did not bar recovery.

The court also upheld the award of special damages for future dental work, finding the respondent's dentist was qualified to provide opinion evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant bar appealed a 10-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission for allegedly permitting drunkenness.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding that the Board completely misapprehended the evidence of a key defence witness and failed to provide adequate reasons.

Furthermore, the Court held that a 103-day delay in notifying the appellant of the allegations, combined with a lack of identifying particulars for the allegedly intoxicated patrons, severely prejudiced the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence, constituting a breach of natural justice.

The charges were permanently stayed.

The appellant, an unsuccessful municipal election candidate, sued Rogers Cable in Small Claims Court for $10,000, alleging Rogers censored his presentation during a 'Meet the Candidates' broadcast by rolling over the 'A' in 'A Channel', thereby violating his Charter rights and abusing its CRTC licence.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the claim at a settlement conference for disclosing no cause of action and having no provable damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no Charter violation regarding part-time Deputy Judges, that the CRTC has exclusive jurisdiction over broadcasting licence complaints, and that the Deputy Judge had the authority to dismiss the claim at the settlement conference.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and retained a paralegal to negotiate a settlement with the tortfeasors' insurer.

The plaintiff later sued the tortfeasors and the paralegal, alleging the paralegal was negligent and the settlement was invalid.

The paralegal cross-claimed against the tortfeasors, arguing their insurer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff not to negotiate with an unauthorized paralegal.

The Divisional Court allowed the tortfeasors' appeal and struck the cross-claim, holding that a liability insurer owes no duty of care to a plaintiff making a claim against its insured, as this would create an impossible conflict of interest.

The applicant faculty association sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a policy grievance regarding the university's publication of student evaluations of teaching (SET) scores.

The arbitrator had found that publishing the scores did not violate the collective agreement or the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The Divisional Court applied the Dunsmuir framework, determining that the standard of review for the collective agreement interpretation was reasonableness, and for the FIPPA interpretation was correctness.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding her interpretation of 'personal information' in the collective agreement reasonable and her application of the employment-related records exclusion in FIPPA correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a dangerous pursuit.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer and the Commission applied the wrong test by focusing on the objective reasonableness of the force used rather than the appellant's subjective 'sole purpose' for discharging the firearm under s. 8 of O. Reg. 546/99.

The appeal was allowed and the charge of discreditable conduct was dismissed.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action alleging vertical price-fixing conspiracies in the sale of engineering resins.

The plaintiff cross-appealed, seeking to expand the class definition to include Tier 1 manufacturers.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary, fact-driven conclusions regarding the class definition and the common issues of loss and liability.

The respondent sought costs of a one-day appeal on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $76,138.70.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs as there was no misconduct by the appellant.

The court also found the 193.7 hours claimed by the respondent's four lawyers to be excessive for a case of moderate complexity.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board which held that it lacked jurisdiction to order the implementation of a low-income rate affordability program for natural gas consumers.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the broad statutory authority to fix 'just and reasonable rates' using 'any method or technique' permitted the Board to consider ability to pay.

The majority concluded that while cost of service is the starting point, the Board has the jurisdiction to implement differential pricing to protect the interests of low-income consumers.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his application for a refund of a $600 rental deposit.

The appellant argued he was entitled to rescind the tenancy agreement due to misrepresentations about security and a request for post-dated cheques.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or breach of natural justice by the Tribunal, and held that there is no unilateral right to rescind a validly formed contract prior to the occupancy date.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent Chief Coroner to file a record of proceedings in a pending application for judicial review.

The underlying application sought to review the Chief Coroner's decision not to order an inquest into the death of the applicant's child.

The respondent argued that the decision was not the exercise of a statutory power of decision and generated no record of proceedings.

The court granted the motion, holding that as long as there is a pending application for judicial review, a record of proceedings must be filed, leaving the determination of reviewability to the reviewing panel.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action against them.

The Divisional Court denied leave, emphasizing the deference owed to case-management judges in certification motions.

The court found no conflicting decisions or errors in the certification judge's treatment of waiver of tort, conspiracy pleadings, or special damages.

The moving party school board sought costs following a successful motion to vary a consent order.

The self-represented respondent had entered into the original consent order regarding his son's education despite lacking the authority to do so, as the child was under the care of a child services agency.

When the moving party discovered this and requested a variation, the respondent refused to consent, forcing an unnecessary motion.

The court awarded costs to the moving party, condemning the respondent's incivility and unreasonable conduct, and fixed the quantum at $7,500 based on what was fair and reasonable.

The appellant licensee appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario finding it breached s. 45(1) of O. Reg 719/90 by permitting drunkenness on its premises.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board committed an error of law by failing to make a specific finding that the licensee 'permitted' the intoxicated patron to be on the premises, which is an essential element of the infraction.

The finding of a violation was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision that upheld Woodbine Entertainment Group's (WEG) indefinite suspension of his racing privileges.

The suspension followed the discovery of Erythropoetin (EPO) in three of the applicant's horses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably balanced WEG's private property and contractual rights with the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the horse racing industry.

Following a successful motion to quash a judicial review application, the moving party sought costs of $15,000 plus disbursements, as well as costs for other respondents.

The responding party opposed the quantum.

The Divisional Court found the motion was straightforward and essentially undefended, making the claimed counsel fee unwarranted.

The court fixed costs at $8,379.38 inclusive of GST and disbursements, and denied the request for costs for the other respondents due to a lack of evidence.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order made on the eve of trial that struck the action from the trial list, required a formal motion to amend the Statement of Claim before a Master, and ordered substantial costs thrown away.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's order, which addressed a unique and complicated situation.

Costs of the leave motion were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The tenants appealed an eviction order and a jurisdictional ruling made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The Court found that meaningful appellate review was impossible due to a malfunction that resulted in missing transcripts for a full day of evidence, combined with the Board member's failure to provide adequate reasons for her decision.

The appellant husband appealed a finding of bad faith made by the motion judge in a family law disclosure motion, but did not appeal the underlying costs order itself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal lies only from an order, not from a finding alone.