ODC 2009

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that granted four minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey retirement home in a Highway Commercial zone.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Board failed to properly apply the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, misinterpreted the Official Plan and zoning by-law, and failed to justify how significant departures from density limits and lot coverage requirements could be considered minor.

The appellants, an architect and his firm, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects finding them guilty of professional misconduct.

The misconduct involved affixing a seal to a design not prepared under the architect's personal supervision and knowingly misrepresenting to a building inspector that construction complied with the Building Code despite the presence of non-compliant French doors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Committee's jurisdiction, its interpretation of the regulations, and its conclusion that peer evidence was not required to find the conduct dishonourable.

The penalty of a four-month suspension and costs was also upheld.

The appellant mother appealed a motions judge's order that required the respondent father to pay reduced child support of $250 per month for their adult son attending university, and dismissed her claim for retroactive child support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The reduced support amount appropriately accounted for the son's bursary, part-time work, and the father's payment of his car insurance, while the conflicting evidence did not establish an entitlement to retroactive support.

The applicant sought an urgent injunction to allow a student to attend a school prom after the principal denied him the privilege following a 10-day suspension.

The applicant argued the denial was an uncommunicated extension of the suspension and thus reviewable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that attending a prom is a privilege, not a legal right, and the principal's decision was not a statutory power of decision capable of judicial review.

Even if reviewable, the court found the principal's decision was reasonable.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of an interim decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding card-based certification.

The employer had provided lists of employees for two prospective bargaining units with 24 overlapping names.

The unions agreed between themselves on how to allocate the overlapping workers and argued the employer was bound by this agreement.

The Board ruled the employer was not a party to the agreement and ordered the employer to provide an unqualified list.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with its jurisprudence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that denied him temporary disability benefits and found no permanent impairment from a workplace accident.

The applicant argued WSIAT erred by relying on a general medical discussion paper, failing to consult a medical advisor, and improperly weighing the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding WSIAT's decision was reasonable, supported by the applicant's own medical records showing pre-existing back pain, and that WSIAT, as an expert tribunal, was not required to consult a medical advisor.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision regarding health benefits coverage.

The City brought a preliminary motion to quash the application for delay, which the court dismissed, finding no inordinate delay or prejudice.

On the merits, the court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision.

The court found that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the language of the collective agreement was unambiguous and correctly declined to admit extrinsic evidence.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a committee decision ordering the reinstatement of a teacher who had resigned after a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old student.

The College sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the qualifications of the teacher's social worker and argued the committee's decision was unreasonable and lacked sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test, the committee's decision was reasonable based on the evidence, and the reasons provided were adequate.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $45,000 made against him in a family law proceeding.

The motions judge had awarded costs on a full indemnity basis after finding the applicant acted in bad faith and unreasonably.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to bring the motion but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs award and noting the case did not raise issues of general importance.

The appellants appealed an order of a Master refusing to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their personal injury action for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the Registrar failed to serve the Status Notice on the appellants' solicitor of record, instead sending it to a previous address of the lawyer with carriage of the file.

Because the Registrar failed to comply with the strict service requirements of Rule 48.14, the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the action.

The appeal was allowed and the dismissal order was set aside.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that denied them a $10,000 fee for preparing a Professional Marketing Package to obtain mortgage financing.

The trial judge found the appellants were acting as unregistered mortgage brokers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were 'carrying on business' as mortgage brokers and that it would be contrary to public policy to allow an unregistered broker to enforce payment of a fee under the Mortgage Brokers Act.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

He argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction and violated natural justice by refusing to admit documentary evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and confirming that evidence is not permissible on a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the motion judge dismissing her motion to set aside a Registrar's order.

The Registrar had dismissed her appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order for failure to perfect.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant raised no question of law, provided no explanation for the delay in perfecting the appeal, and demonstrated no grounds to vary or set aside the motion judge's order.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application under the Road Access Act to close an access road on their land, which provided the sole motor vehicle access to the respondents' cottage.

The parties had been litigating over the road for 20 years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' application was an attempt to relitigate an issue that was res judicata due to a 2005 consent order.

The court also found that the respondents had a legal right to use the road based on previous agreements and court orders.

The union brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge that permitted the employer to file affidavit evidence containing notes of a labour arbitration hearing on an application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and struck the affidavit evidence, finding that the motions judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the Keeprite standard.

The court held that affidavit evidence is only admissible in rare circumstances to show a complete absence of evidence on an essential point or a breach of natural justice, neither of which were established by the employer.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the tenant $5,500 and costs.

The dispute centered on whether the landlord could require the tenant to replace its sign due to a change in the plaza's sign policy, despite a lease provision expressly approving the existing sign.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's interpretation that the approval lasted for the duration of the lease and found no error in the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing their request to amend their Statement of Defence.

The action was commenced in 1986, and the motion to amend was brought just as a trial date was about to be set.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the motion was an abuse of process designed to delay the trial.

The court agreed that the extraordinary delay, lack of reasonable explanation, and irremediable prejudice to the plaintiffs justified refusing the amendments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The self-represented applicant requested a third adjournment of her judicial review application and motion for leave to appeal due to health issues.

The court granted the adjournment, setting a peremptory hearing date, but ordered the applicant to pay $500 in costs thrown away to the respondent within 30 days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his appointment as a bailiff for allegedly participating in unlawful entries.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the first incident was unreasonable because the evidence established the client had a right to occupy the premises.

The Court further held it was administratively unfair to rely on a second, much older incident as an independent basis for revocation due to delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside.

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, alleging he signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Penalty under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no basis to interfere with the Committee's credibility findings that there was no duress.

The Court also held that the finding of a Code of Ethics violation and the penalty imposed were reasonable, given the applicant's creation of a false document and misrepresentation regarding a competing offer.