ODC 2021

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his claim of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related foot injury, argued that his employer discriminated against him by applying its absenteeism policy and failing to accommodate him.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review is reasonableness and found that the HRTO reasonably concluded the employer's application of its policies was not discriminatory, as the employer was entitled to rely on the WSIB's finding that the injury did not prevent the applicant from working.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Committee of the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, which refused to hear his late compassionate appeal regarding a failed dental exam.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's decision on the untimeliness of the appeal was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness by the lack of an oral hearing.

The tenant appellants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and a subsequent consent order denying their motion to set aside the termination.

The tenants argued the consent order was induced by the landlords' misrepresentation regarding the purchase of the property and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appeal raised a question of mixed fact and law, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal an order dated July 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of both motions were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $7,500 all inclusive.

The applicant, an advocacy group for strippers, brought a judicial review application challenging COVID-19 regulations that temporarily closed strip clubs in Stage 2 and Stage 3 areas.

Before the application was heard, the impugned regulations were revoked and replaced, allowing strip clubs to operate with safety requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case on the merits as the live controversy had ended and there was no cogent reason to depart from the general rule against hearing moot cases.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an earlier endorsement of Justice Nadeau.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Chozik dated June 3, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered because the responding parties failed to upload a costs outline to CaseLines as directed by the Court.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $4,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Edwards dated June 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered costs in the amount of $5,000 to be paid to the responding parties within thirty days, to be divided among them as they deem reasonable.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal, granted a stay pending the appeal, and ordered the hearing of the appeal to be expedited.

Costs of $5,000 were left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified its student residence from the residential property class to the multi-residential property class.

The Board's decision relied on a previous ruling to interpret the term 'self-contained unit'.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding there was reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board's statutory interpretation and that the issue was of sufficient importance, as it affected over 80 properties and established a new approach to defining self-contained units.

The applicant cattle producer sought judicial review of a decision by Agricorp, which accepted a recommendation from the Business Risk Management Review Committee that weight gain for cattle occurring outside Ontario was ineligible for benefits under the Risk Management Program.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Agricorp's interpretation of the governing Order in Council and Guidelines was reasonable, as the provisions consistently emphasized 'production in Ontario'.

The court also found no procedural unfairness, noting the applicant had a full opportunity to make submissions and the Committee's reliance on the definition of 'Farmer' did not constitute a new issue.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his dental malpractice claim.

During a tooth extraction, the appellant exhibited signs of distress, prompting the respondent dentist to administer nitroglycerin under the belief the appellant was having a heart attack.

The appellant later suffered a bradycardic event at the hospital and claimed psychological injuries.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent met the standard of care in an emergency situation and that there was no factual causation between the administration of nitroglycerin and the subsequent hospital event.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Cooperators General Insurance Company appealed a preliminary decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) finding that the claimant was a 'dependant' and thus an insured under the policy.

The claimant argued the appeal was premature as the hearing on the merits was scheduled for a later date.

The Divisional Court agreed, dismissing the appeal as premature to avoid fragmented administrative proceedings and inefficiency.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order that adjourned a family law hearing sine die pending the determination of an existing appeal.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court noted that the adjournment appeared to be for the moving party's benefit and that the notice of motion failed to state coherent grounds or meet the test for leave to appeal.

The moving party was given an opportunity to provide written submissions, and the motion was stayed in the interim.

The Death Investigation Oversight Council (DIOC) brought a motion for a sealing order over autopsy files and a redaction order for witness identities in its record of proceedings, which was filed in response to an application for judicial review by Dr. Jane Turner.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the Divisional Court held that while identifying information in the autopsy files must be redacted to protect the dignity of the deceased infants and their families, sealing the entire files was unnecessary.

The court also refused to redact the identities of witnesses interviewed during the DIOC's investigation, finding that the open court principle did not pose a serious risk to the public interest in witness candour.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The parties failed to comply with a case management direction requiring them to upload an agreement on costs or costs outlines prior to the hearing.

The responding party requested to submit an offer to settle prior to the costs award.

The court declined to permit further materials on costs, emphasizing that parties cannot disregard case management directions and that it is inefficient for leave panels to reconstitute to consider costs.

The court fixed costs of the motion at $2,500 payable by the moving party to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Somji J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay agreed costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Diamond dated June 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs in the agreed amount of $6,352.86 to the responding party.