ODC 2014

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on an appeal from a Master's order dismissing her motion to amend pleadings due to expired limitation periods.

The appellant sought to introduce medical notes and affidavits to prove she lacked capacity, which would toll the limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at first instance with due diligence, was largely irrelevant, and would not have affected the result as it failed to establish legal incapacity.

The applicant corporation brought a motion to set aside a previous order and grant leave to be represented by a non-lawyer officer and director in a Small Claims Court appeal.

The court noted that the proposed representative was a full-time employee and officer of the corporation, had prepared all the materials, and the appeal involved less than $2,000.

Given the contextual analysis and new information, the court granted the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Toronto Appeal Division recommending his expulsion for academic offences involving forged transcripts.

The applicant argued the Appeal Division failed to properly weigh mitigating factors, including his remorse, first-offender status, and expert evidence.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Appeal Division's decision on penalty was entitled to high deference.

The court concluded the Appeal Division's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible, and dismissed the application.

The applicants, cottage owners in Rondeau Provincial Park, sought a declaration that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applied to their land leases with the Crown, thereby invalidating a regulation terminating their leases in 2017.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application as it involved the validity of a regulation.

On the merits, the court held that the Residential Tenancies Act does not expressly bind the Crown, nor does the benefit/burden exception apply.

Consequently, the regulation terminating the leases was valid and the application was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a motions judge's decision finding that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to determine custody, access, and support issues for the parties' child, rather than the Quebec Superior Court.

The father also appealed the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly applied the law and made factual findings supported by the evidence, including that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that a prior Quebec parenting agreement was void due to reconciliation and lack of notice to the mother.

The court also dismissed the father's motion to introduce fresh evidence and upheld the costs award.

The respondent sought costs following a proceeding.

The court found the time spent and rates claimed by the respondent's counsel to be reasonable.

However, the court made a downward adjustment to the costs claimed because the court had appointed amicus curiae, which raised real legal issues that the respondent was obliged to address.

Costs were fixed at $6,250 payable by the opposing party to the respondent.

A police officer was ordered dismissed in seven days unless he resigned before that time, pursuant to s. 68(1)(b) of the Police Services Act.

The officer submitted his resignation on the seventh day.

An arbitrator ruled the resignation was ineffective, denying the officer his accumulated sick pay credits.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the statutory time period was both reasonable and correct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a public interest litigant, sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision but the motion was dismissed as abandoned after a time extension was refused.

The respondents sought costs.

The court held that public interest litigants must adhere to procedural rules and awarded costs to the respondents for the procedural motion.

For the leave motion itself, the court declined to award costs to the municipality, recognizing both parties acted in the public interest, but awarded partial indemnity costs to the private landowner respondents who were forced to participate.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay rent arrears and accelerated rent under a commercial lease.

The appellants argued the lease was void ab initio because the zoning bylaw did not permit their auto leasing business without a minor variance or operating in conjunction with an auto repair shop.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lease expressly placed the obligation on the tenant to obtain all necessary permits and comply with zoning laws at its own expense.

The tenant's failure to seek a variance or arrange its business to comply with the bylaw did not render the contract void.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for compensation following two assaults by another resident in his apartment building.

The Board denied the claim based on the appellant's credibility, reliability, reckless behaviour, and extensive criminal record, finding he had put himself in harm's way.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's consideration of the appellant's criminal record and behaviour under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act was reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada's Compensation Fund Committee, which denied their claims for compensation following the misappropriation of funds by their lawyer.

The Committee found that the lawyer had received the funds in the capacity of a banker rather than a lawyer, and thus the losses were not in connection with his professional business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Committee's interpretation of the Law Society Act and its application of the Guidelines were reasonable.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for public interest standing and to consolidate his application for judicial review with a separate Superior Court application.

The respondents opposed the motion, noting they had a pending motion to strike the application for failing to disclose a cause of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's motion, holding that the motion to strike must proceed first as it would determine whether there was a serious justiciable issue.

The court also found it lacked jurisdiction to consolidate the matters and awarded costs of $1,000 to each respondent.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board, arguing that the presiding member breached procedural fairness by conducting an independent investigation into property listings.

The Divisional Court found that while the member did conduct an independent investigation, he disclosed this fact to the parties during the hearing and they proceeded without objection.

The Court held that the parties waived the potential apprehension of bias and dismissed the appeal without costs.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for punitive and aggravated damages.

The defendant argued that the bankruptcy trustee lacked the legal capacity to advance these in personam claims on behalf of the bankrupt company.

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 conclusion that it was not plain and obvious the trustee lacked capacity.

The applicants sought a declaration that Ontario Regulation 27/13 under the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006 was ultra vires and breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

They argued the regulation failed to create a 'doctor' class of practitioners and imposed discriminatory English or French language fluency requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was intra vires, there is no section 7 Charter right to practice a profession unfettered by regulation, and language alone is not a protected ground under section 15.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $5,850 in damages for breach of contract.

The appellant had unilaterally cancelled the respondent's booking of a cruise ship for a dance event.

On appeal, the appellant argued there was insufficient evidence to support the damages award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge committed no palpable and overriding error, as there was sufficient evidence of thrown-away expenses and lost profits.

The appellants, former students of Grenville Christian College, appealed a decision refusing to certify their class action for institutional abuse.

The motions judge had found that all certification criteria were met except for the preferable procedure, concluding that individual issues would overwhelm common ones.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to properly analyze the access to justice barrier and by incorrectly assuming common issues would need to be relitigated.

The Court certified the class action and awarded costs to the appellants.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their medical negligence action as statute-barred under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The action was commenced more than two years after the deceased's death.

The appellants argued the limitation period should be tolled due to fraudulent concealment by the respondent hospital and doctors regarding the deceased's INR results.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim and affidavit evidence did not plead facts sufficient to establish fraudulent concealment, but rather attempted to assert discoverability, which does not apply to s. 38(3).

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a one-year demotion in rank for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The appellant argued the penalty was unreasonable because it gave too much weight to a 10-year-old disciplinary record and failed to consider the economic impact on his pension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably considered the gap in the disciplinary record and that the pension issue was inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal without an evidentiary record.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order and to vacate the stay of that order.

The tenant sought an adjournment, which the court denied, finding the tenant was aware of the motion and refused to cooperate.

The court found that the tenant's appeal raised only factual issues, including findings regarding unpaid rent, service of an N12 Form, and a legitimate agreement of purchase and sale.

Concluding that the appeal disclosed no error of law and was without merit, the court dismissed the appeal and vacated the stay.