ODC 2019

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel, which had overturned the applicant's decision to waive a horse's disqualification following a positive drug test.

The applicant argued the standard of review was correctness as it involved a true question of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness, as the Panel was interpreting its home statute.

The Court found the Panel's conclusion that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant police service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on a police officer from an 18-month demotion to a 40-hour forfeiture.

The Commission had found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the officer twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and by failing to ensure consistency of disposition with a comparator case.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was unreasonable, as it misapplied the Kienapple principle by failing to consider the lack of legal nexus between the offences, and misapprehended the facts of the comparator case.

The Commission's decision was set aside and the Hearing Officer's penalty was restored.

The self-represented moving party sought orders dispensing with the requirement to file transcripts and a signed copy of the order being appealed in her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The moving party argued that filing these documents would prejudice her by acknowledging procedural irregularities and the presence of non-parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the transcripts were not required under the rules in the first place, and that the signed order was a mandatory component of the motion record that caused no prejudice.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's decision regarding the use of a prior civil judgment in disciplinary proceedings against him.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the merits and a correctness standard to the issue of abuse of process.

Finding no error in the Hearing Panel's reasons, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded agreed costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The plaintiffs succeeded on their appeal to add a term confirming the applicability of the deemed undertaking under Rule 30.1.

They sought partial indemnity costs for the appeal and leave motion.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $13,202 in costs for the appeal.

Regarding the initial motion below, the court found that success was divided and set aside the previous costs order of $16,686.33, ordering no costs for the initial hearing.

The moving party condominium corporation brought a motion to quash the self-represented respondent's appeal from a Small Claims Court order.

The underlying Small Claims Court order temporarily stayed the respondent's action for a forensic audit and records production, requiring him to transfer it to the Superior Court of Justice due to lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore no appeal lay to the Divisional Court under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a registered social worker acting as a parenting coordinator and arbitrator, sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

The Committee had dismissed a complaint against her but included non-binding advice regarding the clarity of her professional communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the issues were moot because the complaint was not referred to the Discipline Committee and the applicant faced no professional jeopardy.

The Court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting the College's concession that it lacked jurisdiction to investigate the decision-making process of a social worker acting as an arbitrator in family law proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the bargaining agent for four construction workers.

The applicant challenged the Board's evidentiary ruling that prevented its site superintendent from testifying about his relationship with other on-site workers not subject to the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to exclude the evidence as irrelevant was reasonable, as the applicant had expressly confirmed it was not challenging the size of the bargaining unit.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision regarding the retrospective application of an amendment to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule capping attendant care benefits.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the applicant's mother's income exceeded the maximum benefit amount, meaning the applicant would continue to receive the maximum benefit regardless of the amendment.

It was also revealed that another insurer, not the respondent fund, was liable to pay the benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as moot, finding that the outcome would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties and that the case lacked the necessary factual foundation to decide the important issues raised.

The mother appealed a trial decision ordering joint custody, imputing the father's income for child support, and awarding costs to the father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the joint custody order was a necessary and appropriate response to the mother's severe gatekeeping behaviour, which included unilateral decision-making and false allegations.

The court also upheld the trial judge's imputation of the father's income based on the available evidence, noting that neither party had provided a professional valuation at trial.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission refusing to revoke a Direction to Exclude her from all Ontario gaming sites.

The exclusion was originally imposed due to findings that the applicant was involved in loan sharking at criminal rates of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar's decision reasonable given the gravity of the past conduct and the applicant's failure to demonstrate she appreciated the gravity of her actions or that there was no risk of reoccurrence.

The appellant architect appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to notify a prior architect on three projects and for providing architectural services through an unlicensed entity.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings regarding the failure to notify, concluding the Committee reasonably interpreted the regulation.

However, the Court set aside the finding regarding unlicensed practice, holding the Committee failed to determine whether the drawings at issue constituted a 'design' under the Architects Act.

The matter was remitted to the Committee on that issue.

The applicant, acting as an estate trustee, commenced an application for judicial review without a lawyer.

The Divisional Court adjourned the hearing, holding that under Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party acting in a representative capacity must be represented by a lawyer.

The court ordered the applicant to retain counsel by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The City of Hamilton sought judicial review of a decision by the Mining and Lands Commissioner dismissing its appeal of a conservation authority levy apportioned by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

Hamilton argued that the levy should only be calculated using the assessed value of lands within the conservation authority's jurisdiction, rather than the entire municipality's assessment base.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's interpretation of the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulation 670, finding that the entire assessment base of the municipality is to be used in the calculation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that allowed an employee to participate in a representation vote on a displacement application.

The applicant argued the employee should have been excluded under the April Waterproofing doctrine because he was not assigned to work by the incumbent union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably interpreted 'in the bargaining unit' based on the work being done and reasonably applied its current, more nuanced approach to the April Waterproofing doctrine.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his applications for substantial interference and failure to meet maintenance obligations.

The tenant and his family had moved into the rental unit but left the next day because it was unsafe and unfit for habitation due to ongoing repairs.

The Divisional Court found the Board erred in law by focusing on the tenant's prior knowledge of the unit's condition, ignoring evidence of the severity of the deficiencies, and failing to provide a remedy despite finding the unit unfit for habitation.

The appeal was allowed, and the tenant was awarded the return of his deposit, rent abatement, and out-of-pocket expenses.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding a voluntary severance program.

The Divisional Court found that the Board reasonably applied the test for the duty of fair representation, did not misapprehend the evidence, provided adequate reasons, and did not breach the principles of natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his defence and granting judgment to the respondent for a credit card debt of $10,840.17.

The appellant argued that the respondent increased his credit limit without his express consent, contrary to regulations under the Bank Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge did not err in accepting the respondent's evidence that the appellant had authorized the increases via internet and telephone banking.

The defence had no meaningful chance of success at trial.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for an unpaid final invoice of $14,104.17 for home renovations.

The trial judge had found insufficient evidence to prove the claim because the supporting receipts were not filed, despite finding the contractor credible.

The Divisional Court held this was an error of law, as the invoice itself was sufficient evidence and the respondents failed to lead evidence challenging the specific amounts.

The court substituted its own decision, granting judgment for the appellant in the amount of $13,804.17, deducting only a disputed charge for used heaters.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge had found that the termination clause in the appellant's employment agreement was enforceable and clearly rebutted the common law presumption of reasonable notice, limiting his entitlement to the minimums under applicable employment standards legislation.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's objective interpretation of the contract and dismissed the appeal.