ODC 2022

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of D.L. Edwards J. dated February 4, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs in the amount of $2,700 all inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision quashing her application for judicial review against the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP).

The applicant sought survivor benefits following the death of a plan member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, upholding the finding that HOOPP is a private pension plan not exercising a statutory power or state authority, and therefore its decisions are not subject to judicial review.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision not to apply issue estoppel or in the costs award.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a committee's decision to issue a caution regarding his obstetrical care of a patient whose infant died.

The applicant argued the committee breached procedural fairness by rejecting his proposal for a remedial agreement and ignoring his expert's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision reasonable, as the committee was not bound by its decision-making framework guidelines and was entitled to weigh the expert evidence using its own specialized medical knowledge.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding it engaged in an unlawful reprisal by terminating an employee who raised health and safety concerns.

The employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board limited witness testimony during a consultation and proceeded with a remedy hearing in the employer's absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedures were fair and in accordance with its rules, and its conclusion that the termination was an unlawful reprisal was reasonable.

The moving party tenant sought to vary a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed his appeal as abandoned.

The tenant had appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction and arrears order but repeatedly failed to deliver his appeal materials despite multiple extensions of time.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the case management judge's discretionary decision to dismiss the appeal, noting the tenant's repeated failure to meet court-ordered schedules.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the respondent tenant a rent abatement and damages for illegal entry, lockout, and harassment.

The appellant argued the Board erred in finding he was a landlord rather than a roommate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's arguments raised questions of fact, not law, which cannot be appealed under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also declined to award costs to the successful self-represented respondent for lost wages.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Price J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated January 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $2,500 on consent, payable at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Associate Justice C. Wiebe.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $2,667.93 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Lafrenière J. dated January 21, 2022.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Tranquilli J. dated January 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,857.16.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to be added as a responding party to an application for judicial review and for an order sealing a portion of the record.

The underlying application challenged an HPARB decision confirming a college committee's decision to take no further action on a complaint against a chiropractor.

The court granted the motion to add HPARB as a party pursuant to section 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect the respondent's college history, continuing a prior disclosure order made by HPARB.

The self-represented moving party sought leave to appeal multiple orders.

The court allowed the motion for leave to appeal a 2020 costs order to proceed.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal a 2021 order as moot and an abuse of process, noting the moving party's abusive behavior towards court staff and relentless, meritless appeals.

The moving party's motion for the case management judge's recusal was also dismissed as moot.

The applicant sought judicial review of a government procurement Request for Bids (RFB) for identity card production and the subsequent dismissal of its bid dispute complaint.

The applicant argued that the RFB's domestic production requirement violated the non-discrimination provisions of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found that the administrative decision dismissing the complaint was unreasonable, as it failed to properly apply the test for necessity under the public safety exception of CETA.

The Court quashed both the decision and the RFB, finding that the domestic production requirement was not justified on the record.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of an employment standards officer's decision, over ten months after the decision was rendered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay was excessive, there was no reasonable explanation for the delay, and the respondent would suffer prejudice.

Furthermore, the court found no apparent grounds for relief, noting the moving party failed to pursue a de novo review before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether certain bargaining proposals were central or local issues under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

Following the Board's decision, the parties reached an agreement that the disputed issues were central, resolving the underlying conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matter because the Board's procedural decision did not set a dangerous precedent requiring appellate intervention.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his application for income replacement benefits as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application after the appellant repeatedly failed to cooperate with an ordered independent psychological examination, including raising consent issues and threatening the psychologist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant's conduct constituted an abuse of process under its rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

The tenants brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board order that required the landlords to return possession of the rental unit.

The landlords had previously exercised self-help to evict the tenants while they were out of the country.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to lift the stay, finding the tenants failed to demonstrate unusual hardship as they were residing in Dubai and had no firm plans to return.

The court also dismissed the tenants' alternative requests for an interlocutory injunction and a Certificate of Pending Litigation.