ODC 2016

The appellant estate appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying reimbursement for out-of-country medical expenses incurred by the deceased in Texas for cancer treatment.

The Board found that the deceased did not seek prior approval and did not meet the requirement for post-approval because the services were not provided in 'emergency circumstances'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's factual findings were supported by the evidence and its decision was reasonable.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought to review an interlocutory order of the Small Claims Court regarding amendments to pleadings and an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the Registrar correctly dismissed the application because no record was required for an interlocutory proceeding, and the applicant failed to perfect it in time.

Furthermore, the court noted the application lacked merit as judicial review of interlocutory Small Claims Court orders is restricted to jurisdictional issues, which were not present here.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an eviction order, arguing she was the true owner of the property and the landlord held legal title due to fraud.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal did not raise a question of law under s. 220 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, but rather sought to re-litigate factual findings.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence, noting it merely attempted to contradict the Board's factual findings, which the court could not review.

The applicant, an adult grandson of the deceased, sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion for interim support from his grandmother's estate.

The motions judge had found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that he was a dependant whom the deceased was supporting immediately before her death.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision, noting the sporadic nature of the financial assistance and the deceased's deliberate removal of the applicant from her will.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for prospective rent after the tenant vacated the unit pursuant to a Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early.

The tenant had been noted in default.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness by the Deputy Judge in requiring the landlord to prove liability.

The court further held that under the Residential Tenancies Act, when a landlord serves a notice of early termination and the tenant complies by moving out, the tenancy is terminated and there is no common law remedy for prospective rent.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the 'cost of transportation' for medical travel by private vehicle under O. Reg. 222/98 was limited to operating costs and excluded ownership costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation unreasonable.

The Court held that the plain meaning, context, and purpose of the legislation did not support excluding ownership costs from the calculation of the medical transportation benefit, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for redetermination.

The applicant, a justice of the peace, sought judicial review of a Hearing Panel's decision removing him from office for judicial misconduct involving sexual harassment of female staff, and denying him compensation for his legal expenses.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct and the penalty of removal, finding the panel's decisions reasonable given the applicant's lack of insight and the need to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.

However, the Court set aside the decision denying compensation for legal fees, finding the panel erred by presuming that a judicial officer found guilty of misconduct should not be compensated, and remitted that issue for reconsideration.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding rent arrears.

The Registrar issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The appellant acknowledged the underlying eviction issue was moot because she paid the arrears, but asserted she should be entitled to the costs of the appeal.

The court held that seeking costs on a moot appeal is not frivolous or vexatious, and directed the appeal to be listed for a hearing solely on the issue of costs.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had accumulated significant rent arrears and failed to perfect his appeal or pay rent since the termination order was made.

The court found that the notice of appeal raised no arguable grounds and was filed solely to delay eviction and allow the tenant to live rent-free.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, and the stay of eviction was set aside.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to add their mortgagee, Home Trust Company, as a defendant in their action against their insurer.

The appellants sought to add the mortgagee solely to obtain an injunction against mortgage enforcement proceedings while the insurance dispute was resolved.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that an injunction is a remedy, not a cause of action, and the proposed amended statement of claim failed to plead any tenable cause of action against the mortgagee.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, brought an application for judicial review seeking $11 million in damages against her former family doctor for alleged failure to sufficiently treat a knee condition.

The applicant had previously complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which took no action, a decision confirmed by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

Neither the College nor the Board were named as parties.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequently dismissed the application as fundamentally flawed and an abuse of process, noting that monetary relief is not available on judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a claim for unpaid wages for carpentry work and a counterclaim for deficient work.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence on the deficiencies and repair costs because the appellant was not qualified as an expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that evidence regarding the nature of faulty work and repair valuation requires expert opinion, which the appellant failed to provide.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside or vary an order of a judge that had quashed his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the motion merely repeated arguments previously found to be devoid of merit and raised no question of law, the court dismissed the motion as an abuse of process.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they had oppressed the respondent shareholder in a closely-held family corporation and ordering them to purchase her shares for $4.25 million.

The appellants argued the application judge erred by not directing a trial, by finding oppression despite the respondent's alleged misconduct in a related family dispute, and by improperly mixing and matching expert valuation evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a trial was unnecessary under the Hryniak principles, that the alleged family misconduct was irrelevant to the corporate duties owed, and that the application judge properly chose between competing expert methodologies to determine fair value.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that denied his claim for a bonus payment following his termination.

The motion judge had found that the appellant had no contractual entitlement to a bonus, as the bonus plan was purely discretionary and subjective.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings, concluding that the employment offer only provided eligibility to participate in the bonus plan, not an entitlement.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's alternative calculation of the bonus quantum or the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, brought an application for judicial review seeking monetary damages against a doctor following a dismissed complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding the application fundamentally flawed, as it sought monetary relief not available on judicial review and failed to name the proper respondents, the court dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $20,000 in damages for copyright infringement of musical compositions.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge's reasons, even when supplemented by the record, failed to adequately explain what was decided and why, particularly regarding the application of copyright principles to the facts.

Concluding that the inadequate reasons prevented meaningful appellate review and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the court ordered a new trial.

The applicant sought to stay a Renewable Energy Approval amendment and an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision regarding a transmission line route modification near her property, pending judicial review and appeal.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness as she was not properly notified of her right to a hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Divisional Court found that while the denial of procedural fairness raised a serious issue, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm with corroborating medical or environmental evidence.

The court also found the OEB reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the applicant's health and environmental concerns and that she was not an 'owner of land affected' under the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Both motions for a stay were dismissed without costs.

The defendants (Underwriters) sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that allowed the plaintiff to amend its claim to add the Underwriters as defendants in a class action and admitted the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision regarding the admissibility of the expert evidence and the finding that the Underwriters would not suffer non-compensable prejudice by being added as parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court order requiring him to produce his allegedly defective iPhone 5 to the respondent for expert inspection.

The applicant argued the Deputy Judge lacked jurisdiction because the Small Claims Court Rules do not explicitly provide for pre-trial property inspection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that Rule 1.03 permits the court to make orders by analogy to the Rules of Civil Procedure where the Small Claims Court Rules are inadequate.

The court found that ordering a pre-trial inspection was necessary to ensure fairness and a level playing field, given the applicant's intent to rely on expert evidence regarding the device.