ODC 2021

The applicant union sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and rejected a constitutional challenge alleging that the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 violates the freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by failing to provide a right to strike.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision on the unfair labour practice was reasonable and its conclusion on the constitutional issue was correct, as it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Fraser.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing a Rule 21 motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the underlying order was interlocutory and not binding on the trial judge.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy at a retirement residence for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the complex through abusive behaviour towards staff and residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error of law in the LTB's application of the substantial interference test.

The Court also rejected arguments that the LTB hearing was procedurally unfair or that the LTB failed to properly consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic when ordering the eviction.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the appellant sought costs of $9,454.44, while the respondent proposed $6,000.

The Divisional Court fixed the costs of the appeal at $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the appellant's actual costs were over $42,000.

The appellant tenants appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their motions to set aside eviction orders.

The landlord had obtained the eviction orders ex parte after the tenants signed agreements to terminate their tenancies (N11 forms) under pressure, having been told they had to vacate for renovations without being informed of their statutory rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding the Board Member erred in law by failing to apply the proper test under s. 77(8)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, failing to consider all the circumstances, and failing to assess the real substance of the transactions and the landlord's good faith under s. 202.

The eviction orders were set aside and new hearings were ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $25,000.

The moving party sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility of documents.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the underlying interlocutory decision is not binding on the trial judge regarding the admissibility of the impugned documents at trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $5,060.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Gibson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Ramsay J. dated June 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an adjournment order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a benefit permit order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $7,418 to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from a power of attorney order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $8,640 to the responding parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders.

A non-lawyer claiming to be an Indigenous Grand Chief purported to represent the moving party without court authorization, filing vexatious materials and refusing to follow case management directions based on claims of Indigenous sovereignty.

The court barred the unauthorized representative from acting in the Divisional Court without leave, dismissed the representative's purported motion to review case management decisions under Rule 2.1.01, and ordered the moving party to personally comply with court directions or face dismissal of his motions for leave to appeal.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, sought an extension of time to appeal a costs order made more than two years prior.

Despite multiple directions from the court explaining the test for an extension and providing opportunities to file proper materials, the moving party failed to do so.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ultimately dismissed the motion as it could not possibly succeed.

The moving party was also barred from bringing further motions in the Divisional Court regarding the underlying file without prior permission.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his claim against a lawyer and the Law Society of Ontario.

The Divisional Court issued a Rule 2.1.01 notice indicating the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant failed to provide a substantive response, instead accusing the judge of incompetence and bias.

The court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1.01 and ordered that the appellant must obtain leave before commencing any future proceedings in the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its request to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01.

Due to an administrative error, the motions judge did not receive or consider the appellant's responding submissions before releasing her decision.

When notified of the error, the motions judge declined to reconsider the matter and directed the parties to pursue their remedies under the Rules.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge should have set aside her decision and either reconsidered it or directed it to another judge, rather than requiring an appeal.

The decision was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation regarding the valuation of his property.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled ZOOM hearing and requested an in-person 'Chancery' hearing, arguing he was not liable for property taxes as a 'natural person'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion due to the applicant's failure to attend and found the proposed appeal was an abuse of process and devoid of merit.

The court also imposed restrictions on the applicant's ability to commence further proceedings regarding property taxes without prior judicial permission.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that the respondent employers were not statutorily obligated to negotiate the maintenance of pay equity plans following a health services integration.

The union argued that the Pay Equity Act required mandatory bargaining for pay equity maintenance and that the Tribunal's interpretation violated the freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted the Act as placing the responsibility for maintaining pay equity solely on the employer, with the union's role limited to monitoring and filing complaints.

The Court also found that the Tribunal's decision did not disproportionately limit Charter protections.

The moving party, a physician recently acquitted of criminal sexual assault charges, sought an interim stay of a scheduled disciplinary hearing before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending his application for judicial review.

He argued the disciplinary proceedings were an abuse of process and res judicata given his acquittal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the application for judicial review premature as the Discipline Committee had not yet heard or decided the abuse of process arguments.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm and held that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in allowing the self-regulating profession to proceed with its hearing.