ODC 2013

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding her $5,000 for loss of income and $1,200 for future therapy following assaults by her former husband.

She argued the Board erred in attributing her psychological condition and inability to work to factors other than the assaults, and in failing to apply the 'thin skull' rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that pre-existing and subsequent stressors contributed to her inability to work, akin to the 'crumbling skull' doctrine, and that the award fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of certain schedules to a project agreement between the applicant and Infrastructure Ontario.

The applicant argued the information was exempt from disclosure under the third party information exemption in s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC adjudicator reasonably concluded that the disputed information was the product of a negotiation process and was not 'supplied' by the applicant in confidence.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that declined to determine whether Ontario or Georgia law applied to child and spousal support, deferring the issue to the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, noting that both parties had requested the determination, the jurisprudence on the applicable law was unsettled, and deferring the issue would leave the moving party in procedural limbo while preparing for trial under two different legal regimes.

The respondent physicians brought a motion to restrain the appellant from bringing further appeals or motions in the Divisional Court without leave, pending the determination of an application to declare her a vexatious litigant.

The appellant had commenced multiple actions arising from the same events, filed lengthy and incomprehensible documents, made scandalous allegations against judges and counsel, and failed to pay over $34,000 in outstanding costs awards.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, invoking its inherent jurisdiction and statutory powers to prevent an abuse of process, and stayed all related proceedings by the appellant unless leave is obtained.

The moving party brought a motion to the Divisional Court to set aside an order of a single judge that had dismissed her appeal for failing to obtain leave.

The underlying proceeding involved an application by the respondent physicians to declare the moving party a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court found no error in the single judge's decision and dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellants, private electrical contractors, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board which held that affiliates of municipally-owned electricity distributors are permitted to provide street lighting services under section 73(1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, without geographic restriction.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant law firm appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for unpaid legal fees.

The motion judge found the action was a nullity under section 2(1) of the Solicitors Act because it was commenced before the final account was delivered, and that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no error in law in allowing the defendants to amend their pleadings, finding the action a nullity, and concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant moved for a stay of enforcement pending her appeal of an order dismissing her motion to set aside a default judgment for possession of her property.

The respondent mortgagee had claimed possession based on mortgage default.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay.

While the applicant established irreparable harm, she failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as her proposed defences—including that dishonoured cheques discharged her debt and demands for the original 'inked' mortgage—lacked legal merit.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for compensation after his housemate set fires in their residence and uttered death threats.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by requiring the appellant to prove the alleged offender intended to injure him through the arson, contrary to established case law.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Board for a re-hearing before a newly constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions that dismissed his five applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent church, and declared him a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no errors of law or unreasonable findings of fact in the Tribunal's decisions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The self-represented applicant sought to introduce a psychiatric report the day before the hearing without a proper affidavit or motion for fresh evidence.

The applicant requested an adjournment to properly serve a notice of motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for an adjournment and refused to admit the report, finding it irrelevant to the issues and noting that an adjournment would prejudice the responding parties.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the registration of the respondent as a motor vehicle salesperson with conditions.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse registration due to the respondent's failure to supervise employees who committed extensive fraud, resulting in unpaid liens, taxes, and consumer complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that while the respondent was guilty of lax supervision, he was a victim of fraud and his personal honesty and integrity were not stained.

The Court also admitted fresh evidence of the respondent's guilty pleas to corporate tax offences but held it would not have changed the Tribunal's decision.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order that continued existing banking and management arrangements for joint venture properties, rather than ordering a court-appointed sales officer to distribute sales proceeds directly to the ultimate owners.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's highly discretionary decision and concluding the proposed appeal did not involve a matter of general importance.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court.

The court found that the appeal raised no question of law, as required by section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and that the tenants were merely seeking to re-try the case.

The court also dismissed the tenants' allegation of bias, noting that disagreement with the Tribunal's factual findings does not constitute bias.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,000.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for partial summary judgment.

The motion judge had found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiff's claim for unpaid bonuses was statute-barred, applying the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, particularly given the fact-specific nature of the discoverability issue in the employment context.

The Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, moved for leave to adduce fresh evidence on an appeal from a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal had ordered the Registrar to register the respondent as a salesperson.

The fresh evidence consisted of court records and Canada Revenue Agency documents concerning tax proceedings and charges against the respondent for failing to file corporate returns.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and admitted the fresh evidence, finding it was credible, relevant to a potentially decisive issue, and could reasonably have affected the result.

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the plaintiff damages for constructive dismissal and unpaid invoices, and finding the individual defendant personally liable.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of constructive dismissal but set aside the wrongful dismissal damages because the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence of lost income following his termination.

The court also set aside the finding of personal liability against the individual defendant, as it was not pleaded and the plaintiff had the onus to establish he contracted with the individual rather than the corporation.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant municipality appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment.

The municipality argued the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred under s. 44(8)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming the vehicle collided with a pole on an 'untravelled portion of a highway' (a median).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that determining whether the median was an untravelled portion of the highway required a trial to fully appreciate the evidence regarding reasonably foreseeable vehicular and pedestrian use.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing he was denied procedural fairness because he was given only thirteen days over the Christmas holidays to pay rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting the tenant failed to attend the original hearing, took no steps to pay the arrears after receiving notice, and continued to reside in the property rent-free for ten months.

Following a motion regarding a residential tenancy and alleged fraud, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had been successful in obtaining what they sought, as the appellant was permitted to remain in the home while the respondent began receiving rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.