ODC 2018

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claims for utility arrears, maintenance charges, and rent against the respondent tenant.

The parties had previously appeared before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), which issued a consent order declining jurisdiction over current claims but retaining jurisdiction over future invoices.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to treat the LTB order as final and binding.

The court awarded the appellant $292 for utility arrears incurred prior to the LTB order, upheld the dismissal of the maintenance charges and older utility claims due to the limitation period, and awarded the appellant costs of the trial.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a zoning by-law passed by a neighbouring municipality to permit a major tourist destination, including a casino.

The applicant raised eight questions of law, arguing the OMB misinterpreted the Planning Act, regulations, and official plans regarding municipal council decisions, complete applications, holding provisions, and public works.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OMB's interpretations were reasonable and within its specialized planning expertise.

The applicants sought an extension of time to perfect their appeal from a Small Claims Court decision regarding a brokerage fee.

Their appeal had been dismissed for failing to perfect it within one year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to explain the delay, did not attempt to pay for the required transcript over the course of the year, and did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal had merit.

The applicant sought to appeal a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had dismissed his appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, to a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The applicant claimed he was advised by court staff that this was the proper forum.

The court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the proper forum for such an appeal is the Court of Appeal.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians, which revoked his license to practice veterinary medicine and ordered him to pay costs of $160,000 for unprofessional conduct.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including missing transcripts, failure to disclose documents held by a third party, and alleged bias of an expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's decision reasonable and noting that the appellant failed to bring a proper motion for third-party disclosure and consented to the expert's qualification.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a foreign-trained medical doctor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his application for lack of standing.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to allege his own rights were infringed regarding the allocation of residency positions.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable because the applicant had included evidence in his application showing he had applied for and been denied a residency position.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it liable for wrongful dismissal and awarding the respondent employee damages.

The employee, a casino dealer, suffered a permanent workplace injury and was placed on modified duties for two years before being terminated for frustration of contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the employment relationship was not restricted to the dealer position and that the employer failed to prove frustration of contract.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to reduce his child support obligations to zero.

The father argued he had quit his jobs due to mental illness and was now receiving ODSP.

The Divisional Court dismissed the father's motion to adduce fresh evidence from a psychiatrist, finding it would not have affected the result given the motion judge's factual findings that the father had voluntarily and strategically quit his jobs.

The Court upheld the motion judge's decision to impute income, finding no basis to interfere with the conclusion that there was no material change in circumstances.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an Adjudicator with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, which found that the Toronto Police Service had conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to his access request.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of gang stalking and mind control, and argued that the police failed to produce records documenting these activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the Adjudicator's decision, no breach of procedural fairness, and declining to consider Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.

The appellants, who were volunteer directors of corporations within the insolvent First Leaside group, appealed a motion judge's refusal to dismiss negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against them.

The plaintiffs, investors in the group, alleged the directors owed them a duty of care regarding the financial stewardship of the corporations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the actions against the appellants, holding that a director's duty of care is owed to the corporation, not to individual shareholders or investors, absent specific circumstances like fraud or independent tortious conduct, which were not pleaded.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) preliminary decision finding that the respondent was a resident of Ontario at the time of his motor vehicle accident in Alberta, and thus an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had been living and working in Alberta for more than 60 days prior to the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT reasonably applied a flexible, context-specific test for 'ordinary residence' rather than a strict physical presence test, and that the LAT's weighing of the evidence regarding the respondent's ties to Ontario was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a trial costs decision ordering him and a co-defendant to pay $35,177.74 in costs after being found liable for $10,000 in damages for defaming the respondent seniors' facility.

The appellant argued he was a successful whistleblower and relied on the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act to claim substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's discretionary costs award and noting that the anti-SLAPP provisions did not apply to a costs decision after a trial where the plaintiff succeeded.

The appellant moved under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to correct a previous order of the Divisional Court, arguing the court erred in finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board was not required to produce and pay for transcripts of the hearing below.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 59.06 is intended for correcting accidental errors or omissions, not for re-arguing a decided issue or appealing a decision.

The appellant was granted a final extension to re-perfect her appeal by filing proof that she had ordered the transcripts.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding him to be a tenant and ordering him to pay $25,000 in rent arrears.

The appellant argued he had an agreement to purchase the home and that part of his monthly payments were towards the purchase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations were factual and not subject to appeal, which is limited to questions of law.

The court upheld the Board's finding that without proof of a finalized purchase agreement, the entire monthly payment was rent.

The appellant was ordered to vacate the premises within seven days.

The appellant rental car company appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent insurer was the first loss insurer for a motor vehicle accident involving a rental car.

The driver of the rental car was a listed driver, but not a named insured, under her father's standard Ontario Automobile Policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under the clear terms of the policy, rental vehicle coverage is only available to the named insured or their spouse.

Because coverage was not available to the listed driver, the priority provisions of s. 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act were not triggered, and the rental company's insurer was liable.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy under section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act following the termination of her employment as a superintendent.

The tenant argued she was denied natural justice and that the Board erred in law by finding an employment relationship and failing to consider section 83(3) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, that the Board sufficiently considered the statutory provisions, and that the finding of an employment relationship was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her application for social assistance under the Ontario Works Act, 1997.

The appellant's spousal support payments were being garnished 100% by the Family Responsibility Office to repay an overpayment of child support.

The Administrator determined that the garnished spousal support payments constituted income because they were made on behalf of or for the benefit of the appellant to reduce her debt.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's interpretation of the clear and unambiguous statutory provisions to be reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant tenant requested an adjournment of her appeal to allow additional time to perfect it.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to July 16, 2018, on strict conditions.

These conditions included the ongoing payment of rent, providing evidence of an application to an assisted living facility, and payment of $750 in costs to the respondent landlord.

The appellant, a registered physiotherapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for inappropriate touching during a patient's ankle treatment.

The Committee imposed a three-month suspension and costs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee breached procedural fairness by attempting to physically recreate his described treatment techniques during their private deliberations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's actions were a proper evaluation of the evidentiary record and its credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The penalty was also upheld as falling within a reasonable range.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $25,000 for defective hardwood floor installation.

The trial judge had found the action was not statute-barred because the parties were engaged in ongoing negotiations and remediation efforts.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law.

Under the Limitations Act, 2002, a limitation period is not tolled or extended by ongoing communications or efforts to rectify defective work.

The action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period and was therefore statute-barred.