ODC 2014

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to summarily dismiss her human rights complaint.

The Tribunal had concluded that earlier incidents were out of time and not part of a series of incidents, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the timely allegations.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent employer.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order striking out his statement of claim with leave to amend.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The statement of claim was plainly flawed as the moving party attempted to represent other plaintiffs, including minors without a litigation guardian, and failed to plead any foundation for claims against two of the defendants.

The mother appealed a trial judge's decision denying her request to relocate the child's primary residence and ordering that the child reside primarily with the father.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge made material errors, including relying on a witness who did not testify and failing to consider the mother's evidence that she would remain in her current city if the relocation was denied.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing, with the child to remain with the father on an interim basis pending the new hearing.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's decision dismissing her motion to amend her statement of claim to add new claims and defendants in a wrongful dismissal action.

She argued that the limitation period for the new claims was suspended due to her mental illness constituting a legal disability.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that while the plaintiff suffered from a severe mental illness, it did not render her legally disabled or unable to appreciate her cause of action.

The court also dismissed motions to adduce fresh evidence and upheld the Master's rulings on undertakings and refusals.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment enforcing a settlement regarding the sale of a defective used vehicle.

The moving party missed the 30-day appeal deadline and argued the Small Claims Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding damages above the original settlement amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal because the entire action had been transferred to the Small Claims Court, which had jurisdiction to award additional damages incurred due to the moving party's breach of the settlement.

The court also found the moving party failed to demonstrate an intention to appeal within the time limit.

The applicants moved for leave to appeal a costs order to the Divisional Court.

The underlying order dismissed a motion to set aside a $1.2 million judgment and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the respondent, but denied the applicants' request for costs payable personally by the respondent's lawyer.

The court held that the costs order against the non-party lawyer was part of the final judgment and could not be severed.

Therefore, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals of final orders over the monetary limit lie to the Court of Appeal.

Several proposed intervenors brought motions to vary a motions judge's decision denying them intervenor status in a judicial review application.

They argued the motions judge erred by considering the overlap in their proposed submissions and the burden on the court process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding the motions judge applied the correct legal principles and made no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in exercising his discretion.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application for arrears of rent related to an air conditioning charge.

The LTB Member had relied on a previous decision involving the same landlord but a different tenant to find the charge invalid.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Member erred in applying issue estoppel because the parties and the specific issues were different.

The matter was remitted back to the LTB for a re-hearing before a different Member.

The appellant, an occupant of a residential unit, appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating the tenancy.

The Board had accepted the consent of the named tenant to terminate the tenancy, finding that the appellant was not a party to the application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board committed a reversible error of law by denying the appellant procedural fairness.

Under section 187(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, the appellant was a person directly affected by the application and should have been accorded party status.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child support, section 7 expenses, net family property, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the majority of the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's decisions not to impute income, to cap figure skating expenses at $10,000 per year, and to limit the life insurance obligation to age 18.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the issue of trial costs, awarding the appellant $7,500 because her offer to settle was more favourable than the trial result.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed her claim of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant alleged the police discriminated against her by refusing to investigate her complaints of psychotronic mind control due to a perceived mental illness.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the police properly refused to investigate because the complaints did not constitute a crime was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Social Benefits Tribunal decisions regarding Ontario Works overpayments and cancellation of assistance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had already appealed one decision unsuccessfully, had prior civil actions regarding the other decisions dismissed, failed to pursue her statutory right of appeal within the required time, and raised questions of fact rather than law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying benefits for a shoulder injury.

The applicant had previously received benefits for an elbow injury caused by repetitive stress at work.

The Tribunal concluded that the shoulder injury arose after the elbow injury and was not caused by it, nor by a workplace accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Tribunal's assessment of the medical evidence and application of the statutory presumption of causation.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order requiring him to post $30,000 in security for costs in his action for assault and false arrest against retail security guards.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to address whether the action was 'frivolous and vexatious' under Rule 56.01(1)(e).

Given the conflicting evidence regarding the degree of force used during the arrest, the court concluded there was no good reason to believe the action was frivolous and vexatious.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a Small Claims Court order, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful respondents sought costs despite their counsel acting on a pro bono basis.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments against awarding costs in pro bono cases, applying Court of Appeal precedent that costs awards are appropriate and necessary for successful pro bono litigants to ensure access to justice.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs of $2,557.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding he did not meet the definition of a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misapprehending new medical evidence filed before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal correctly weighed the new evidence, determining it was either inconsistent with earlier reports or reflected a deterioration in condition after the Director's decision.

The applicants sought to set aside a single judge's decision quashing their application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The applicants argued that the judge should have applied the 'plain and obvious' test and referred the matter to a full panel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the 'plain and obvious' test applies to defects on the face of a proceeding, whereas the Borowski test is the correct framework for determining mootness.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's discretionary decision to decline hearing the moot application.

The applicant union sought judicial review to quash an arbitral award that enforced a four-party settlement agreement regarding regional flying ratios.

The applicant argued the settlement agreement had ceased to operate due to a changed corporate structure and a subsequent statutorily imposed collective agreement between only two of the parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the settlement agreement remained in force was reasonable, and that two parties could not unilaterally amend a four-party agreement through a bilateral statutory arbitration process.

The applicant Ministry sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the expansion of the urban boundary of the Town of Fort Erie.

The Board had found that a transitional regulation under the Places to Grow Act 2005 applied because a valid 'request' was made prior to June 16, 2006, even though supporting documentation was submitted later.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Board's interpretation of 'request' or its factual findings.

The Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario sought judicial review of the provincial government's decision to reject the recommendation of the Justice of the Peace Remuneration Commission regarding the appropriate Industrial Aggregate Index rate for a 2008 salary increase.

The Commission's majority had recommended a compromise rate of 3.3%, which the government rejected in favour of the minority's 2.7% recommendation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the government met the standard of simple rationality by providing legitimate reasons for its decision, including that the majority failed to answer the specific question referred to it and failed to properly weigh the required statutory criteria.