ODC 2013

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring it to pay a rent differential to a former tenant who vacated due to a bedbug infestation.

The Board found that the landlord's failure to address the infestation in the common hallway substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment and induced him to move out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'induced' to include a failure to act was reasonable and consistent with the tenant protection objectives of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The defendant applied for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding regarding breach of contract claims related to prepaid phone card expiry dates.

The court applied the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's order.

The court emphasized that the Class Proceedings Act is remedial and that the certification judge appropriately addressed the commonality of the systemic practices.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent leave to examine a hostile, out-of-jurisdiction witness before trial pursuant to Rule 36.01(2).

The motions judge had ordered the examination to be videotaped but denied further conditions.

The Divisional Court agreed the examination was warranted but allowed the appeal in part, ordering that a judge be present during the examination to resolve anticipated objections and privilege issues given the witness's hostility.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.

They argued that s. 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act barred the respondent's civil action for wrongful dismissal because she had already commenced an ESA complaint.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to decline ruling on the summary judgment motion, noting the respondent's serious allegations of intentional torts, including misrepresentation and fraud affecting the ESA process.

The court found that the evidence required for the tort claims would overlap with the wrongful dismissal claim, making summary judgment inefficient and inappropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to indefinitely suspend his driver's licence following his third impaired driving conviction.

The applicant argued that his first conviction, which occurred when he was a youth, could not be used to calculate the suspension under the Highway Traffic Act due to the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

He also argued that the Registrar was estopped from imposing the indefinite suspension because he had previously received an erroneous notice of a three-year suspension and a notice of eligibility for reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no conflict between the provincial and federal legislation, and holding that the doctrines of public estoppel and legitimate expectations cannot override the Registrar's mandatory statutory duty to suspend the licence.

The defendant moved for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that allowed its appeal from a Master's decision but remitted the matter for a new status hearing with the right for the plaintiff to file additional evidence.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed issues did not involve unsettled law and did not raise matters of general importance.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant filed a police misconduct complaint arising from a stop and search during the G20 summit.

The OIPRD investigated and directed the Chief of Police to hold a disciplinary hearing.

Because more than six months had passed, the Chief applied to the Police Services Board for an extension of time.

The Board denied the extension without notifying the applicant, allowing him to make submissions, or providing reasons for its decision.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, holding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with notice, an opportunity to be heard, and reasons for its decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of her application for registration as a Nurse Practitioner.

The appellant had failed the required examination three times and argued the examination was unfair because it was based on American nursing practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as the appellant provided no evidence to establish the examination was unfair or that she was personally adversely affected by its content.

The appellant manufacturer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for defective roofing shingles.

The appellant argued the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the respondent knew or ought to have known the identity of the manufacturer more than two years before commencing the action, based on correspondence from his insurer and a product colour guide in his possession.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board approving the respondent's application to construct electricity transmission lines for a wind energy project and approving the forms of land agreements offered to affected landowners.

The appellant argued the independent legal advice clauses in the agreements were misleading and the Board failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the approval of the form of agreement was a discretionary decision that did not raise a question of law or jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Board's decision was reasonable and its reasons were adequate.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the union's certification application fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The respondent union argued the application was premature because the employer had other non-constitutional grounds for opposing certification that had not yet been decided.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, proceedings before administrative tribunals should not be fragmented.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the court quashed the application as premature.

The applicant Ministry sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision reinstating a Transportation Enforcement Officer who was terminated after pleading guilty to off-duty indecent acts.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and upheld the termination, finding that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Board misapprehended medical evidence regarding the employee's long-term risk of reoffending and unreasonably diminished the significance of the Millhaven criteria for off-duty conduct, particularly the negative impact on the employee's credibility as a peace officer required to testify in court.

Following the quashing of the plaintiff's appeal, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $29,862.69.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive and sought a reduction to $6,500, alleging unreasonable conduct by the defendant's counsel.

The court found no evidence of unreasonable conduct and noted the defendant had to respond to the appeal pending the motion to quash.

After deducting amounts related to Superior Court proceedings, the court fixed the defendant's costs of the appeal and motion to quash at $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of parts of a bus services contract between the applicant and a municipality.

The adjudicator found that the third party exemption under s. 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply because the information was mutually generated through negotiation, rather than supplied by the applicant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and that the applicant failed to establish that the inferred disclosure or immutability exceptions applied.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order denying the production of certain medical records.

The motion judge had refused production based on the assumption that the individual whose records were sought had cerebral palsy and could not serve as a proper comparator.

On appeal, counsel clarified that there was no conclusive diagnosis of cerebral palsy.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered production, noting that the trial judge retains the discretion to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

The appellants appealed an order directing the sale of a residential property they co-owned as tenants in common with the respondent.

The appellants sought physical partition instead of sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property's configuration and the appellants' failure to pay municipal taxes and insurance made partition impractical and sale the most beneficial option.

The respondent's cross-appeal to purchase the appellants' share at a fixed price was dismissed, as joint tenants are entitled to the fair market value obtained through an open market sale.

The respondent was awarded costs for both the application and the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration as a real estate broker due to serious and repeated dishonest conduct.

The Tribunal found the appellant engaged in mortgage fraud, forged signatures, and made false statements on his broker renewal applications.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in admitting certain evidence and misapprehended other evidence.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant purchased kayaks from the respondent, which were delivered late and allegedly defective.

The trial judge found that a contract existed because the appellant accepted and used the kayaks, but awarded a reduction in the purchase price due to defects, resulting in a judgment for the respondent.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his findings of fact regarding the contract and the quantum of economic loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and there was no palpable and overriding error.

The defendant appealed a Master's order granting the plaintiff leave to amend its Statement of Claim in an action for negligence and breach of contract arising from a sewage system upgrade project.

The defendant argued the amendments raised new, time-barred causes of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Master's findings that most amendments merely particularized the existing claims based on the same factual matrix.

For the amendments that did raise a new cause of action, the court agreed with the Master that the issue of discoverability was genuinely in dispute and should be resolved at trial, allowing the amendments subject to a limitation defence.

The appellant utility company appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that reclassified $22 million in earnings from a transportation risk alleviation mechanism as 'gas transportation costs' rather than 'utilities revenue'.

The appellant argued this constituted impermissible retroactive ratemaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board had the authority under section 36 of the Ontario Energy Board Act to ensure rates were just and reasonable, particularly given the appellant's lack of disclosure regarding the nature of the revenues.