ODC 2017

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that its mobile home park was not exempt from rent control under s. 6(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appellant argued the park did not exist in 1991 and therefore could not have been occupied for residential purposes prior to November 1, 1991.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as an integral part of the premises was used for residential purposes prior to the statutory cut-off date.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision granting primary care of a child to the respondent, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give primacy to the principle that siblings should not be separated except in extreme and compelling circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or principle.

The trial judge had properly considered the relevant provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act, expressly addressed the case law on separating siblings, and balanced all factors to determine the child's best interests.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the discipline panel of the Ontario College of Pharmacists dismissing his application for reinstatement.

The applicant's certificate had been revoked twice previously due to criminal convictions for trafficking narcotics and fraud.

The Divisional Court found that the panel's decision was reasonable, noting that the panel was entitled to weigh the risk to the public and the profession, reject the applicant's evidence as self-serving, and find that expert reports and educational courses were insufficient to allay concerns.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed orders regarding retroactive child support, arguing the trial judge erred by using his line 150 income without deducting carrying charges and interest expenses under section 16 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the parties had agreed at trial to base support on line 150 income without further deductions.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that two contracts were not sufficiently connected to support statutory setoff, equitable setoff, or a stay under the Construction Lien Act.

The appellant argued it was prevented from putting a full record before the court due to the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant denturist appealed the revocation of his licence and a costs award by the Discipline Committee.

The Committee found the appellant had provided dental services outside his scope of practice to multiple patients, including vulnerable children, and submitted 911 false insurance claims totaling over $91,000 using the identities of two dentists.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty of revocation was not unreasonable given the egregious nature of the misconduct, and the costs award of $70,000 (representing 55% of the College's costs) was based on appropriate legal principles.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondent sought costs of $8,665.50.

The appellant did not provide any costs submissions.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the appellant.

The moving party, an accounting firm appointed to conduct a compliance audit of a mayoral candidate's election campaign finances, brought a motion to dismiss an application for judicial review against it.

The applicant sought to quash the auditor's report.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the auditor was not exercising a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act when preparing the report.

The court held that the report was merely a technical step and not determinative of legal rights, making it plain and obvious that the application against the auditor was devoid of merit.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside an order quashing their application for judicial review of the Minister's decision to apply an Interim Enforcement Policy to certain First Nations regarding hunting and fishing rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, upholding the motions judge's finding that the Minister's decision was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and therefore not justiciable absent an abuse of process.

The Court also agreed that the applicant's section 15 Charter claim was bound to fail as the policy did not alter his rights or impose a burden based on race.

Furthermore, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act because the policy was not an exercise of a statutory power.

Dr. Khawar Hanif appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his treatment of a cat and a dog.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the dog, finding the panel's conclusion that Dr. Hanif misdiagnosed the dog with renal failure was reasonable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the cat, finding the panel made serious errors in assessing credibility and unreasonably concluded that Dr. Hanif had struck the cat.

The findings of guilt regarding the cat were set aside, and the issues of penalty and costs were remitted to the Discipline Committee for reconsideration.

The successful respondent on a motion for leave to appeal an OMB decision sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding the appellants' conduct did not warrant an elevated scale.

However, the court rejected the appellants' argument that costs should be limited to a standard $3,500, noting the appellants had raised 34 errors of law.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $20,858.67 to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claim against a university and a department chair.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, which it determined was the date the applicant was asked to withdraw for academic reasons.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application as untimely was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Chief Building Official issued building permits for a body rub parlour in a specific zoning area.

A competing business appealed the decision to the Superior Court, where the appeal judge rescinded the permits, finding the CBO's interpretation of the word 'front' in the zoning by-law to be unreasonable.

The CBO and the permit holder appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard of review.

The CBO's interpretation of the by-law was reasonable.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved allegations of a conspiracy to defame the plaintiff, and the moving parties argued the claims against them were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct test for summary judgment and correctly concluded that the discoverability of the claims was a genuine issue for trial.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance transcending the interests of the parties.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside an order of the motions judge, which added the Williams Treaties First Nations as necessary parties or interveners to an application for judicial review and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the applicants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that the First Nations would be directly affected by the declarations sought.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that the applicants persisted with an unnecessary motion despite being on notice that elevated costs would be sought.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision denying a certificate of eligibility for the Ontario Digital Media Tax Credit for its interactive digital sweepstakes games.

The respondent had concluded the games were ineligible because their primary purpose was to promote the sale of long-distance phone cards.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the respondent's decision unreasonable.

The court held that the regulatory definition focuses on the characteristics of the game when operated by the user, making the developer's motivation for creating the games an irrelevant consideration.

The appellant brought a motion to stay portions of a final parenting order pending appeal.

Pending full argument on the stay motion, the court addressed the respondent's interim parenting time.

The appellant raised concerns about the respondent's accommodation and a recent medical incident where the respondent appeared disengaged.

The court found insufficient evidence to require supervised parenting time but ordered that the children reside with the appellant, with the respondent having specified daytime parenting time on weekends.

The appellants, residential tenants, appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies and denying relief from eviction.

The tenants had been temporarily relocated to other units owned by the landlord during the redevelopment of their original building, pursuant to a s. 37 Planning Act agreement.

When the new building was ready, the tenants refused to vacate the temporary units.

The Board found this substantially interfered with the landlord's lawful rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness, the eviction notices were valid, and the Board reasonably concluded that the agreement to terminate the temporary tenancies did not violate s. 37(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order made by Justice Gilmore.

While the applicant established a bona fide intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay, the court found no merit in the proposed appeal.

The applicant failed to demonstrate conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing her motion to disqualify the respondent's counsel and granting a cross-motion to strike certain material from her motion record based on settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct tests for disqualification and settlement privilege, and that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance extending beyond the interests of the parties.