ODC 2013

The applicant taxpayer sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

In 2002, the Board made a typographical error in an order, dropping a zero from the property's assessed value.

Six years later, the Board unilaterally corrected the error under its minor error rule, resulting in a retroactive tax bill of over $500,000 for the taxpayer.

The taxpayer applied for a review, arguing prejudice and delay, but the Board refused relief.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's conclusions on its jurisdiction to review the correction and its failure to properly weigh prejudice and delay.

Following an appeal with mixed success, the court issued a brief endorsement ordering that no costs be awarded to either party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to loss of earnings benefits due to her failure to accept offers of modified duties from her employer.

The applicant argued she was not given proper notice of the possible permanent termination of her benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as there was ample evidence supporting the finding of notice and the applicant's capability to perform modified work.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Brampton's decision to remove his name from a priority list for a taxi plate licence.

The City removed the applicant after he failed to provide reliable documentation proving he met the ongoing eligibility requirement of driving a taxicab in Brampton for at least 24 hours a week for 40 weeks of the year.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the City's decision was justified, the by-law was valid, and the by-law officer did not fetter his discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy for personal use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding good faith and that the affidavit required by s. 72 of the Residential Tenancies Act should have been sworn by the landlord's son.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the good faith finding was a question of fact not subject to appeal, and that the landlord's affidavit was sufficient as he required the unit for his personal use along with his family.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision that ordered them to repay a $21,885.40 commercial debt to the respondent but refused to allow their counterclaim for equitable set-off of $20,886.37 in unpaid legal fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law.

The court held that the two transactions were sufficiently close in time and context between the same parties to warrant equitable set-off, making it manifestly unjust to allow the respondent to enforce repayment without accounting for the cross-claim.

The appellant, a medical resident, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The refusal was based on outstanding, unproven criminal charges of sexual assault.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the law and violated the presumption of innocence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the regulatory scheme places the onus on the applicant to demonstrate good character, and considering unproven charges in the context of public interest does not violate the presumption of innocence.

The defendant Ministry brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision upholding a Master's refusal to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay at a status hearing.

The delay was largely attributed to the plaintiff's former solicitors.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the reviewing judge's decision, which properly applied the test for delay and deferred to the Master's exercise of discretion.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant psychiatrist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding that he sexually abused a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee's structure of analysis effectively reversed the burden of proof by eliminating alternative scenarios based on an absence of evidence.

The Court also found the Committee compounded this error by relying on the absence of mental health evidence after denying the appellant's application for third-party records, and by improperly using prior consistent statements to bolster the complainant's credibility.

The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the parties made written submissions on costs.

The successful respondents sought costs of $5,050.00, relying on a written offer to settle for $500.00 which they bettered.

The appellant argued for partial indemnity costs and sought its own costs for a motion to extend time.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments, noting the appellant's own costs outline was over $13,500.00.

The court awarded the respondents their requested costs fixed at $5,050.00.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a related employer.

The Board had granted the union's application in default after the applicant failed to file a timely response, and subsequently denied a request for reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant could not rely on its own failure to post notice to employees to claim a breach of procedural fairness.

The Court also held that the Board's refusal to reconsider the default decision was reasonable, as the applicant's prejudice resulted from its own inaction and cavalier attitude toward the Board's process.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to stay the defendants' pre-discovery summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff argued the motion judge relied on a test that conflicted with other jurisprudence and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The Divisional Court found no conflict in the case law, noting that different approaches to case management did not amount to conflicting legal tests.

The court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, as the appropriateness of a summary judgment motion without discovery is case-specific.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the National Committee on Accreditation (NCA) refusing to recognize his foreign law degree due to his Third Class Honours standing.

The applicant argued the assessment process contravened the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the NCA's decision was reasonable, based on objective criteria, and that the accreditation process was fair and lawful.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing an appeal from a Master's decision requiring a non-party witness to answer questions on a refusals motion.

The underlying motion sought to hold the moving party liable for a judgment against dissolved corporations under the Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that while there was some doubt about the relevance of certain questions, the moving party failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised an issue of general importance transcending the interests of the parties.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay, or alternatively, to strike a recent amendment to the application.

The applicants had commenced the application to challenge regulations under the Payday Loans Act, 2008, but delayed advancing it while monitoring a related case and negotiating with government officials.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicants provided an adequate explanation for the delay and the respondents suffered no prejudice.

The court also allowed the amendment to stand, noting the broader public interest issues involved, and appointed a case management judge to prevent further delay.

The defendants in a construction lien action moved to discharge the plaintiff's lien and dismiss the action after the plaintiff failed to attend two scheduled cross-examinations.

The Master found the abortive cross-examinations insufficient to discharge the lien, but nevertheless discharged the lien and dismissed the action on the basis that the proceeding would be procedurally difficult and expensive.

The plaintiff appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master breached procedural fairness by deciding the motion on grounds not raised in the notice of motion, depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to respond.

The Court also held that a motion to discharge a lien under s. 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act is analogous to a summary judgment motion and is inappropriate where there are disputed issues of fact.

The defendant appealed a jury verdict finding it 100% liable for a slip and fall that injured the 96-year-old plaintiff.

The appeal was dismissed by the Registrar for delay after the defendant failed to perfect it within the required timeframes.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside the dismissal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the failure to perfect was inadvertent, the defendant had dragged its feet, the delay prejudiced the elderly plaintiff, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any merit to the appeal.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Police Governing Authority granting an extension of time to serve a Notice of Hearing for disciplinary action.

The applicant was not given notice of the request for an extension and had no opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that this failure breached minimal requirements of procedural fairness, rendering the decision fundamentally flawed and justifying intervention despite the interlocutory nature of the ruling.

The court quashed the decision and ordered the applicant's salary to be paid for the period of his suspension.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his complaint.

The applicant had previously settled a civil action and human rights complaint against the respondent college for $10,800, but later applied to the Tribunal claiming the settlement was obtained by fraud and pressure.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal acted reasonably in dismissing the application, as the applicant had signed the settlement, received the funds, and provided no evidence of fraud or contravention.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant law firm sought leave to appeal a cost order made against it personally under Rule 57.07.

The firm had been removed as counsel for the plaintiff due to a conflict of interest, as another lawyer in the firm was acting for the defendant hospital.

The motion judge found the firm failed to fully disclose the conflict to the plaintiff and maintained an untenable position, causing unnecessary costs.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.