ODC 2020

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the September 15, 2020 order of Justice E.M. Morgan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

At the hearing, the appellant advised the court she was not actually seeking to appeal the Tribunal's decision, but rather sought to add unresolved claims to an existing Superior Court action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had not appealed the prior Superior Court decision that barred her from adding those claims, and the time to do so had expired.

The applicant railway company sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld a union grievance concerning work jurisdiction.

The arbitrator found that the applicant improperly assigned yard service work to a road service conductor-only crew, contrary to the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application to the specific facts was intelligible, transparent, and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff successfully sued the corporate and personal defendants in Small Claims Court for unpaid wages.

At the outset of the trial, the trial judge excluded one of the personal defendants from the courtroom, despite defendants' counsel stating she was essential to instruct him.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that excluding the instructing witness contravened Rule 52.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and constituted an error of law.

Although the plaintiff had a strong case, the exclusion created an appearance of unfairness amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The self-represented applicant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which had dismissed his complaints against medical professionals as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

After reviewing the Record of Proceedings, the Divisional Court found the applicant's allegations to be bizarre and indicative of delusions.

The court issued a second notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why his appeal should not be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The tenant had not paid rent since August 2019 and failed to attend the Board hearing or the motion to quash.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The court quashed the appeal as an abuse of process designed solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlords.

The applicant, a residential tenant, was evicted following an order by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

She sought the return of her personal property and a dog from the landlord.

The court ordered the landlord to allow the applicant to retrieve her personal property, as distraint for unpaid rent is not permitted in residential tenancies.

The court declined to order the return of the dog, directing the applicant to pursue the matter in Small Claims Court.

Due to the applicant's history of litigation, the court ordered that she may not commence further proceedings without leave, and issued a notice considering the dismissal of her judicial review application as frivolous and vexatious.

The self-represented appellant tenant sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing because the respondent landlord failed to comply with a case management directive regarding the service of materials.

The tenant received the materials only a week before the hearing and required time to seek legal advice.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment on conditions, including that the tenant pay rent on specified dates, and reserved the costs of the attendance to the panel hearing the appeal.

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

The tenant was in substantial rent arrears and had previously signed an agreement to terminate the tenancy, but remained in the premises partly due to the COVID-19 eviction stay.

On consent of the parties, the court ordered the tenant to make an interim rent payment and lifted the stay of eviction effective December 31, 2020, while encouraging the parties to negotiate a global settlement of all outstanding issues.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed its action and stayed two other actions on the motions judge's own initiative during a default judgment motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in law by failing to follow the mandatory procedural steps under Rule 12.02(4) of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

The failure to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions deprived the appellant of procedural fairness.

The dismissed and stayed actions were reinstated.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed appeals did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with standard practice, no reasons were provided.

The parties reached an agreement on costs.

The appellant teacher appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for intimidating and brusque behaviour towards students, and the resulting sanctions including a six-month suspension.

She argued the Committee failed to consider that the complaint was a reprisal for her own workplace harassment claims, that the Committee was biased in qualifying a former vice-principal as a participant expert, and that the College lost jurisdiction due to delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee reasonably assessed credibility, correctly applied the participant expert doctrine, and imposed reasonable sanctions for the protection of the public despite the appellant's retirement.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her claim for reimbursement of an allegedly illegal rent increase.

The tenant had agreed to pay an additional $200 per month and signed a written lease to deter the landlord from selling the property.

The Divisional Court found the LTB erred in law by relying on an express agreement to validate the increase, contrary to the recent Court of Appeal decision in Honsberger.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the LTB to determine whether the parties and premises changed sufficiently under the written lease to constitute a new tenancy agreement.

A case management conference was held in an application for judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The self-represented applicant sought to introduce over 4,700 pages of additional materials that were not included in the tribunal's official record of proceedings.

The court directed that the issue of the proper record be determined at a subsequent motion, outlining the narrow exceptions under which new evidence may be admitted on judicial review.

The court also provided directions regarding the applicant's proposed notice of constitutional question.

The appellant auto repair shop appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its action for vehicle repair, towing, and storage costs.

The trial judge found that the respondent vehicle owner had not authorized the repairs and that the appellant had breached multiple provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding authorization.

The court also upheld the refusal to award damages on a quantum meruit basis, noting the appellant's unclean hands and lack of an equitable basis for relief.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering their eviction for failing to comply with a previous Board order.

The previous order required the tenants to remove items, including a fence made of sticks and pinecones, from the common area adjacent to their unit.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness, the Board was biased, and the Board applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the landlord was entitled to apply for eviction without notice under section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act after the tenants breached the conditions of the previous order.

The court also found no evidence of bias and held that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages to personal property stored in the respondent's apartment building.

The trial judge found that the respondent was a gratuitous bailee and had not breached the applicable standard of care of gross negligence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference from the respondent's decision not to call two former employees as witnesses, and by misapprehending the evidence regarding the duty of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to certify a proposed class action against a medical clinic for infection control lapses during endoscopies.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that the appellant failed to establish an identifiable class of two or more people who suffered harm.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by requiring evidence of actual harm to multiple people at the certification stage, rather than just an objective basis to identify class members.

The matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the remaining certification criteria.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that struck 8 of 15 issues from a draft Issues List during a case management conference.

The moving parties argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that it was premature, without prejudice to the moving parties raising the issues at an appropriate time in the future.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Master's decision that stayed their action in favour of arbitration.

The underlying dispute involved an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction home containing a mandatory arbitration clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed appeal had no merit because section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act precludes appeals from decisions granting a stay.

The court also found no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the Master's decision.