ODC 2022

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a 15% rent reduction for tenants after the landlord unilaterally removed on-site storage lockers to build new rental units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the unreasonableness of the landlord's actions and the quantum of the rent reduction were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not subject to statutory appeal.

The Court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by crafting a global remedy for all affected tenants without requiring each individual tenant to testify.

The moving party, Canadian National Railway Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gordon J. dated April 26, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order dated April 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Doi J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500 inclusive.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which held that Employment Insurance (EI) sickness benefits were not deductible from the respondent's Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the adjudicator erred in law by creating an ambiguity where none existed and by distinguishing sickness benefits from other EI benefits.

The Court held that all EI benefits, including sickness benefits, fall within the definition of gross employment income and must be deducted from IRBs at the rate of 70 per cent.

The third parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated May 13, 2022.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000, payable within 30 days.

The applicant, a non-Catholic student at a Catholic high school, challenged a school board policy requiring student trustees to be Roman Catholic.

The Divisional Court held that the policy was not protected by the denominational school rights in s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because the role of student trustee did not exist at Confederation and does not involve governance.

The court found the policy violated the equality rights of non-Catholic students under s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

Furthermore, the policy was found to be ultra vires the school board as it conflicted with provincial regulations.

The policy was quashed.

The applicant insurer brought an urgent motion to stay a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding pending a judicial review of the LAT's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The applicant's newly retained counsel had scheduling conflicts with the set hearing dates.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and right to counsel of choice.

However, the court concluded the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as other counsel from the firm might be available or the presiding official could address fairness concerns at the hearing.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had been waiting for benefits.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

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

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 and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,898.45.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order regarding the production of documents.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single issue: whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents after May 2016, having found an implied joint retainer among the parties and their counsel.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 22, 2022.

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

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of André J. dated April 29, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 23, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded no costs.

The court noted that it reached its decision without reference to non-compliant materials filed by the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's (CPSO) disposition of his complaint against a pediatric hepatologist.

The applicant alleged the physician provided inadequate care to his son, who died shortly after being discharged from the hospital, and falsified medical records.

The CPSO's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) investigated and ordered the physician to be cautioned regarding record-keeping and sepsis assessment, but declined to refer the matter to the Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions were reasonable, free of bias, and supported by adequate reasons.

In a high-conflict family law dispute, the self-represented moving party sought to challenge several temporary orders made by various judges.

During a case management conference, the court scheduled motions for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal two of the orders (relating to children's schooling and the sale of a rental property).

The court refused to schedule an extension motion for a third order excluding the moving party from a jointly-owned business, noting the request was vexatious as an earlier motion for leave had been abandoned.

The International Trademark Association (ITA) brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding an interlocutory injunction restraining the use of a disputed trademark.

The ITA sought to make submissions on the meaning and effect of recent amendments to Canada's trademark legislation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ITA's proposed arguments focused on the final disposition of legal questions that would be decided at trial, rather than the test for an interlocutory injunction which was the subject of the appeal.

The court concluded the intervention would distract rather than assist the appeal court.

The employer applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding its sick leave administration practices.

The employer had retained a third-party administrator and required employees to communicate with it, complete comprehensive medical forms for absences over five days, and use a specific form for return-to-work accommodations.

The Arbitrator found these practices violated the collective agreement, which specified communication with supervisors and limited the scope of medical information required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement to be reasonable and consistent with arbitral jurisprudence protecting employee privacy.

The applicants, a group of cottage owners, sought judicial review of a work permit issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to the respondents for the construction of a dock and walkway on a property that was the site of a former mine.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and breached their procedural fairness rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the MNRF's decision was reasonable as it relied on expert environmental assessments from other ministries and attached appropriate mitigation conditions.

The court also held that the MNRF met its procedural fairness obligations, noting that formal reasons were not required for a building permit application.