ODC 2022

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply to his tenancy under the s. 5(j) business exemption.

The Board found the predominant purpose of the tenancy was to operate an Airbnb short-term rental business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test and the tenant's challenge raised issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a first collective agreement for nurses at a long-term care home.

The union argued that the arbitrator's decision to transition the disability income protection plan to the central agreement terms was unreasonable and lacked adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied the replication principle and statutory criteria, and that the brief reasons were adequate given the parties' prior agreement to a bottom-line decision.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's family law application in Ontario, arguing lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

The parties had lived in Costa Rica since 2016, where their assets and children were located, and where family law proceedings were already underway.

The court found that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as there was no real and substantial connection to the province.

Alternatively, the court held that Costa Rica was the clearly more appropriate forum and dismissed the Ontario application.

The appellant appealed a decision of an Associate Justice dismissing her motion to amend her statement of claim to add the Crown and various government ministries as defendants.

On appeal, the appellant abandoned the request to add the ministries and sought only to add the Crown.

The Divisional Court found that the Associate Justice erred in law by failing to apply Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding adding parties.

The court granted the appeal, allowing the appellant to add the Crown as a defendant, noting there was no non-compensable prejudice and the Crown was the proper party.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal council resolution directing staff to proceed with the development of an arena/event centre.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith, arguing that a staff update report failed to include requested information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness, bad faith, or arbitrary conduct by the council.

The court also noted that while an alternative statutory remedy existed under the Municipal Act, it exercised its discretion to hear the judicial review to avoid further delay in the long-standing planning process.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her motion to add a request for punitive damages to her application for accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the Tribunal's ruling was not a final decision or order.

The Court emphasized that fragmentation and piecemeal appeals are discouraged in regulatory proceedings, and the appellant must wait until a final decision on the merits before appealing.

The applicant brought a motion to strike portions of the record considered by the DIOC and to determine whether materials provided to but not reviewed by the DIOC form part of the record on judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, holding that the admissibility of evidence before the DIOC is a matter for the panel hearing the judicial review.

The court directed that unreviewed materials be provided to the panel in a sealed envelope.

The court also granted consent redactions sought by the DIOC and granted interim redactions sought by the applicant to protect her privacy interests pending the panel's decision, applying the Sherman Estate test.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory procedural decision of the Fire Safety Commission regarding jurisdiction and mootness, arguing that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario could review the Commission's decisions and that the Commission failed to accommodate her health issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, applying the principle of prematurity which precludes appeals of interlocutory tribunal decisions.

In a case management endorsement for an appeal, the court addressed several procedural issues.

The appellants' Notice of Constitutional Question was struck out as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.

The court also settled the orders of the late Associate Justice Muir, as he was unable to do so, and provided directions for settling the orders of Associate Justice Jolley.

The appellants abandoned their motion to adduce fresh evidence, and the respondent's motion for security for costs was heard and taken under reserve.

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.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action against Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) and its employees.

The appellant had sued for unpaid accounts, wrongful removal from LAO panels, and defamation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over legal aid fee disputes, which are governed by a complete code under the Legal Aid Services Act.

The court also held that the defamation claim was a waste of time as the impugned statements were made during a quasi-judicial process and protected by absolute privilege.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of his hospital privileges at Windsor Regional Hospital.

The hospital revoked his privileges due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to comply with a new 'Model of Care' for renal patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were sufficient and that there was ample evidence of the appellant's disruptive conduct, which undermined the hospital's policies and staff, justifying the revocation of his privileges.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance concerning the wage progression of an Electrical Maintenance Technician.

The arbitrator had found that the employer could require a Red Seal Ticket for advancement to the highest pay rate, despite the collective agreement being silent on the issue.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, finding it unreasonable because the arbitrator failed to meaningfully address the conflicting evidence and arguments regarding the interpretation of the collective agreement and past practice.

The matter was remitted to a new arbitrator.

The appellant appealed a final order reducing his spousal support obligation and dismissing his request to rescind arrears.

He argued the application judge erred by including his pension income in the support calculation, which he claimed resulted in double dipping, and by awarding support above the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' separation agreement expressly included pension income for post-retirement support and the application judge's exercise of discretion to award support above the SSAG range was reasonable given the parties' unequal financial positions.

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.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not file any materials.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated April 24, 2022.

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

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

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no materials, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant private schools sought judicial review of Ontario's decision to allocate the federal 'Safe Return to Class Fund' exclusively to public schools.

Ontario raised preliminary issues of timeliness and justiciability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the expenditure of public funds is a discretionary public policy decision made pursuant to the Crown's common law spending powers.

The court found that the funding allocation was a core policy choice and therefore not justiciable absent jurisdictional error, a constitutional challenge, bad faith, or irrationality, none of which were established.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award to the Divisional Court.

The court determined that under the Arbitration Act, 1991, jurisdiction over the appeal lies with the Superior Court of Justice, not the Divisional Court.

Finding the jurisdictional error to be an oversight, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto without costs.