ODC 2018

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding that it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee.

The employer argued the Deputy Judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact by failing to consider hearsay evidence suggesting the employee had voluntarily resigned by transferring his duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the employee's email and actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation, and the unconsidered hearsay evidence would not have changed the result.

The appellant, a former Director of Education, appealed a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for plagiarism and revoking his certificate.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused his request for a medical adjournment and proceeded in his absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee failed to consider the totality of the medical evidence regarding the appellant's major depressive disorder and unfairly relied on undisclosed internet search results about his employment.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, having paid no rent since April 2017.

The tenant sought an adjournment to file fresh evidence and argued the landlord was negligent regarding safety and pest control.

The Divisional Court refused the adjournment and dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision and noting the tenant was fully heard at the review hearing.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent landlord.

The appellant infant, through her litigation guardian, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant claimed that a motor vehicle accident caused her premature birth, which in turn caused her to suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease requiring attendant care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Adjudicator's factual determination that the infant did not require attendant care beyond normal parental duties was supported by the evidence and determinative of the claim, rendering the legal issues regarding causation moot.

The appellants, tenants in a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting them for seriously impairing the safety of others.

The eviction was based on the tenants keeping an unlawfully large number of unvaccinated feral cats, which had attacked a property manager's dog.

The appellants argued the Board erred by relying on the cats' unvaccinated status, as it was not explicitly listed as a ground in the eviction notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ground for eviction was serious impairment of safety, and the unvaccinated status of the cats was merely evidence supporting that ground.

The majority held that the Board's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his medical licence for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after the termination of the doctor-patient relationship.

The Divisional Court found the penalty unreasonable because it vastly exceeded the typical range of penalties imposed in similar cases without adequate justification.

Furthermore, the Committee's finding that the appellant posed an ongoing risk to the public was not supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The appeal was granted and the matter of penalty was remitted to the Committee for reconsideration.

The appellants brought motions to reinstate two appeals that were dismissed for delay by the registrar.

The appeals stemmed from Small Claims Court judgments finding that the respondents were employees, not independent contractors.

The registrar dismissed the appeals because the appellants failed to file proof of ordering transcripts on time.

The Divisional Court held that the registrar lacked the authority to dismiss the appeals because the appellants had filed proof of ordering the transcripts prior to the registrar's hearing, exhausting the registrar's administrative jurisdiction.

The motions were granted and the appeals reinstated, subject to strict conditions regarding service, transcript ordering, and the posting of security for costs.

The applicant's motion to set aside a previous Divisional Court order under Rule 59.06 was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The successful respondents and intervenors sought costs.

The applicant argued against a costs award, citing impecuniosity and public interest.

The court rejected the public interest argument but considered impecuniosity in determining the quantum.

The Attorney General and the Justices of the Peace Review Council were awarded $7,500 each on a partial indemnity basis.

The intervenors, the applicant's former counsel, were awarded $23,000 on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's reprehensible conduct in making unfounded allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The self-represented appellant appealed a jury verdict dismissing her negligence claim against a public transit commission for injuries allegedly sustained when a bus door closed on her.

She raised numerous grounds of appeal, including alleged errors by the trial judge in quashing witness summonses, admitting pre-accident medical records, instructing the jury, and awarding costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and concluding that the jury's verdict of no negligence was supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to quash the defendant's appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing the defendant's motion to discharge a construction lien.

The plaintiff argued the order was interlocutory and therefore no appeal was permitted under s. 71(3) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court held that the order was final because it deprived the defendant of a substantive defence that would have ended the lien action and enabled the return of posted security.

The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including an eviction order based on the landlord's good faith intention to personally occupy the rental unit.

The appeals were dismissed by the Registrar for delay after the tenant failed to perfect them.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside the dismissal orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the tenant's lack of diligence, the appeals lacked merit as they raised questions of fact rather than law, and the justice of the case favoured the landlord, whose life had been put on hold by the delay.

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering him to pay $386,443.15 for defaulting on a share purchase agreement.

The respondent had originally sought an oppression remedy against the corporation but amended the application to seek personal judgment against the appellant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the amendment did not constitute a new cause of action and was therefore not statute-barred.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the judgment resulted in double recovery, noting the appellant continued to operate the company and the respondent undertook to return the share certificate upon satisfaction of the judgment.

The applicant, a road paving contractor, sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decision to debar it from bidding on municipal contracts for four years.

The debarment was based on the applicant's ongoing litigation against the municipality, health and safety violations including a workplace fatality, and a history of poor contractual performance and abusive behaviour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the initial debarment decision lacked procedural fairness, the defect was cured by a subsequent bona fide reconsideration process.

The court further held that the municipality's by-law was valid and the debarment decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination and reprisal against a volunteer model aviation club.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant was removed from his position due to interpersonal conflict, not age, and that he pursued the complaint in bad faith, disentitling him to protection from reprisal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take no further action regarding his complaint against a physician.

The complaint arose from the physician's requirement that the applicant attend the clinic in person for a prescription renewal rather than renewing it by fax.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Committee's investigation was adequate.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing his complaints against his union and its president for alleged breaches of the duty of fair representation and intimidation.

The applicant alleged the union president told the college president to fire him after the applicant raised concerns about the union's workplace culture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the applicant suffered no actual prejudice in his employment relationship.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding him liable for conversion and ordering him to pay $25,000 for failing to return equipment owned by the respondent.

On appeal, the appellant alleged numerous errors of fact and law, including issues with equipment ownership, admission of documents, and the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact in the trial judge's conclusions and holding that the action was commenced within the two-year limitation period following the respondent's demand for the equipment's return.

The defendant moved for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from a decision setting aside a Master's report in a construction lien action.

The defendant missed the appeal deadline due to his former lawyer's inadvertent error regarding the applicable deadline under the Construction Lien Act.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the defendant had formed an intention to appeal, the delay was short and explained, there was no prejudice to the plaintiff, and the appeal raised a real issue regarding the standard of review applied by the lower court.

The motion was allowed.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding the respondent's entitlement to attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The LAT had found that the respondent's personal support worker did not need to prove economic loss, as she was providing services in the course of her ordinary employment, even though she was hired after the accident.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the LAT's interpretation of the SABS is reasonableness.

The Court found the LAT's interpretation of s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) to be reasonable and consistent with the legislative intent to prevent abuse by unqualified family members, rather than to bar legitimate services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer lost a contract to provide rehabilitation services at a hospital to a competitor.

The appellant terminated its employees, who were subsequently hired by the competitor without recognition of past service.

The appellant argued that a 'sale of a business' occurred under s. 9 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, relieving it of the obligation to provide termination and severance pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Small Claims Court finding that no sale or transfer occurred, as no assets were transferred and there was no commercial connection between the competitors.