ODC 2011

The appellant appealed a family law trial decision, seeking a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge failed to mark an actuary's report as an exhibit, failed to assist her as a self-represented litigant, made errors regarding equalization and pension splitting, and failed to grant a divorce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the exhibit omission was a harmless technical defect and that the trial judge fulfilled her duties to the self-represented parties.

The court found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or discretionary decisions regarding support and equalization.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appeal order of the Director's Delegate, arguing that the Delegate erred in relying on obiter comments from the Court of Appeal's decision in Liberty Mutual v. Fernandes regarding an insurer's ability to access the dispute resolution process to challenge a CAT DAC decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's comments in Fernandes were an integral part of its decision and constituted binding authority.

The court concluded that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and ordering him to pay arrears, as well as a subsequent review order confirming the termination.

The tenant argued he was denied natural justice because he did not receive notice of the final hearing and therefore did not attend.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and upholding the Board's factual finding that the tenant had received notice of the hearing.

The appellant former landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her to pay damages for a bad faith eviction, arguing she was denied natural justice.

The initial hearing proceeded in her absence after she was served by mail at the rental unit, despite the Board and the respondent knowing she lived in Florida for most of the year.

The Divisional Court held that proceeding with the hearing when the Board knew the appellant had no actual notice constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Board's decisions were set aside and the matter was remitted for a rehearing.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP imposing an administrative charge of $81,450 for 543 unauthorized payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the General Manager had no duty to refer the administrative charge issue to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, as the Board's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing unauthorized payments.

The Court confirmed the General Manager's authority to impose a $150 administrative charge for each unauthorized payment under the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004.

Furthermore, the Court noted it would have declined to grant the discretionary remedy of judicial review due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that reinstated the respondent's benefits.

The Director argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondent filed her appeal more than two years after the Director's decision, contrary to the one-year absolute limit in O. Reg. 222/98.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the regulation valid and holding that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by hearing the late appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

The respondent father sought leave to appeal an interim order granting the mother interim custody and permitting her to move to Florida with the children, as well as staying the Ontario proceedings if Florida assumed jurisdiction.

The court found no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the interim custody and mobility orders, applying the best interests of the child test.

However, the court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of whether the Ontario action should be automatically stayed if a Florida court assumes jurisdiction, as this relief was not requested and full submissions were not heard.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Grievance Board, which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear his wrongful dismissal grievance because he had not been employed by the Crown for at least 12 months.

The applicant argued that new legislation, which removed the 12-month requirement for employees not on probation, should apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that jurisdiction is a substantive matter and the former legislative provisions governed the applicant's crystallized rights at the time of his dismissal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that partially denied her claim for compensation following the shooting death of her son.

The Board had denied her claim for mental or nervous shock and reduced her award for funeral expenses because the victim's behaviour contributed to his death.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of the legal test for mental or nervous shock or its reduction of funeral expenses under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The defendant sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's Small Claims Court appeal.

The defendant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,203.60, while the plaintiff argued costs should be on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the principle that full indemnity costs are only awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances.

Finding no such circumstances, the court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $3,000, to be set off against the judgment owing to the plaintiff.

The applicants sought to extend a stay of a 12-month license suspension imposed by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission pending a judicial review.

The respondent argued the judicial review was premature as the applicants had not exhausted their right of appeal to the Commission.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the lack of reasons for the suspension, irreparable harm to the applicant's racing operation, and the balance of convenience favouring the applicant.

The motion was granted and the stay was extended to allow the judicial review to be heard alongside a related application.

The appellant sought to challenge an order requiring her to pay security for costs, failing which her appeal was stayed.

She failed to bring a motion to set aside or vary the order within the required time.

The Divisional Court refused to grant an extension of time, finding no apparent merit to the proposed motion or the underlying appeal, and noting substantial prejudice to the respondent due to the appellant's abusive litigation conduct.

The motion was dismissed and the stay of the appeal continued.

The appellant father appealed an order making his two children Crown wards without access.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the children were at risk, failing to consider prior agency assistance under s. 57(2) of the CFSA, and failing to consider less disruptive alternatives under s. 57(3).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of ongoing risk due to the father's substance abuse and instability, and concluding the trial judge properly considered both prior assistance and the lack of viable less disruptive alternatives.

The applicant, a police inspector, brought an application for judicial review challenging the refusal of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to investigate his allegations of police misconduct, and the Minister's refusal to request such an investigation.

The Commission and the Minister brought a motion to dismiss the application against them.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the applicant lacked standing because the Police Services Act does not grant him the right to request an investigation.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the applicant had standing, the application could not succeed because the respondents owed no duty to the applicant, their decisions did not affect his legal rights, and the remedies of mandamus, certiorari, and judicial review of a statutory power of decision were therefore unavailable.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement regarding costs.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements plus HST.

The costs were directed to be paid to Legal Aid Ontario.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal.

Costs were fixed in the amount of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST, payable forthwith by the respondents to the appellant.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal.

The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant $10,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST.

The court also granted the parties leave to provide written submissions on whether the trial judge's award of costs of the trial should be varied.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario following a guilty plea for operating in a net trust deficit position and failing to maintain proper records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was statute-barred as it was filed out of time under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court also addressed the merits, concluding the Committee's decision was reasonable, the brief written reasons were sufficient, and the requirement to file audited financial statements for three years was within the Committee's jurisdiction.

The applicant purchased property for a retail store and sought access from a provincial highway.

The Ministry of Transportation denied the request for safety reasons, citing a policy preferring municipal road access when available.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the Ministry unlawfully fettered its discretion by strictly applying the policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Ministry had genuinely considered alternatives and expert evidence before reasonably concluding no safe highway access could be provided.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the court received written submissions on costs.

The successful respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Applying principles of proportionality, the court fixed the respondent's costs of the appeal at $4,534.13, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.