ODC 2022

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Halton Region Conservation Authority to void a development permit for a home renovation.

After the partial collapse of walls during construction, the Authority voided the permit without notice or a hearing, claiming the scope of work had fundamentally changed.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding it both unreasonable and procedurally unfair because the Authority failed to follow the mandatory show cause hearing process set out in section 8 of O. Reg. 162/06.

The self-represented tenant brought a motion for an extension and a stay of enforcement of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The court granted the motion on strict terms, requiring the tenant to pay current rent and a monthly amount towards arrears.

The court noted the tenant's history of failing to follow through on payment plans but granted a final opportunity to preserve the tenancy, emphasizing that any missed payments would result in the stay being lifted without further review.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Taylor J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, clarifying that the interlocutory decision does not preclude any party from seeking relief on any issues in the case pursuant to Rules 20 and 21.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment but failed to perfect the appeal for over a year.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The appellant subsequently filed a consumer proposal and argued that the appeal and motion were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Divisional Court held that the stay of proceedings under s. 69.2(1) of the BIA does not apply to an appeal initiated by the debtor.

Applying the Paulsson factors, the court dismissed the appeal for delay, noting the excessive delay, prejudice to the respondents, and the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments regarding language rights and the trial judge's assessment of evidence.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued that the notice of termination was invalid because it was signed by the landlord's property manager, and that section 43(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires an agent to be licensed by the Law Society of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's interpretation that the Act does not define 'agent' and does not require an agent signing a notice of termination to be licensed to provide legal services.

The appellant sought to appeal an order discontinuing a trial and directing that a new trial be scheduled before a different judge.

The Divisional Court determined that the order was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the litigation.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the appeal as an abuse of process for lacking jurisdiction, but provided the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out portions of their statements of defence.

The impugned pleadings referred to documents and communications from a judicial mediation, which the motion judge found were prima facie protected by settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court affirmed that the respondents had not waived settlement privilege and that the justice of the case did not require an exception to allow the appellants to plead the privileged information to defend against breach of fiduciary duty claims.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order dismissing the tenant's motion to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant had failed to pay rent for over two years and breached a mediated settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was an abuse of process designed to obtain an automatic stay of eviction and was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no questions of law.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The tenant appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction orders for rent arrears and personal use.

The Divisional Court had issued a stay of the eviction orders pending the appeal.

The landlord breached the stay order by enlisting the police to evict the tenant.

The court found the landlord in contempt, which he purged by paying $4,000 for the tenant's expenses and reinstating the tenant.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found no error of law or denial of procedural fairness in the LTB's virtual review hearing or its factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed and the eviction orders were restored, subject to a 30-day stay.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for persistent late payment of rent and the landlord's need for the unit for a family member.

The tenant argued the Board erred by refusing an adjournment and denying procedural fairness when he failed to attend the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the Board reasonably refused the adjournment due to a lack of supporting evidence and offered the tenant an opportunity to participate by telephone.

The eviction order was upheld, though enforcement was delayed.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for committing an illegal act, seriously impairing safety, and substantially interfering with reasonable enjoyment.

The Board found the tenant threatened a property manager with a machete, acted aggressively, and failed to pay utilities.

On appeal, the tenants argued the eviction provision for illegal acts without a criminal conviction was unconstitutional, but the Divisional Court dismissed this as it was not raised below and no constitutional notice was served.

The Court found no errors of law in the Board's evidentiary findings or its refusal to grant relief from eviction, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendants after a series of procedural irregularities and without notifying the defendants' counsel, despite knowing the defendants were represented.

One of the key defendants subsequently died.

The defendants successfully moved to set aside the default judgment but their motion to dismiss the action for delay was denied.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the setting aside of the default judgment due to the plaintiff's counsel's sharp practice.

The Court allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed the action for delay, finding the 11-year delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and caused substantial prejudice to the defendants due to the death of the key defendant.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Judicial Council, which had refused to consider his complaint against the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant alleged the Chief Justice committed misconduct by failing to act on his request to initiate criminal proceedings against a federal corrections official.

The court initiated a summary dismissal process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After dismissing the applicant's allegations of judicial bias, the court dismissed the application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the Ontario Judicial Council has no jurisdiction over core judicial decision-making.

The appellant insurer sought to appeal and judicially review an interlocutory evidentiary ruling by the Licence and Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that excluded surveillance video evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court held that the proceedings were premature, as interlocutory rulings in administrative proceedings should generally not be appealed or reviewed until a final decision is rendered, absent exceptional circumstances.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim for breach of an oral agreement and unjust enrichment regarding a condominium assignment.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim on a motion for non-suit after the appellants closed their case.

The Divisional Court found that while the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear non-suit motions, the trial judge erred in law by applying a balance of probabilities test instead of assessing whether a prima facie case was made.

However, the court declined to order a new trial, instead exercising its power under the Courts of Justice Act to substitute its own decision.

The court agreed with the trial judge's factual findings that the oral contract lacked certainty and the written assignment agreement provided a juristic reason for any enrichment, ultimately dismissing the appellants' claim.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 2, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,261.18.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party, who was self-represented, did not file a costs outline.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Carroccia J. dated July 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the Discipline Committee's misconduct and penalty decisions.

The moving party argued that his delay was due to financial strain, lack of legal knowledge, and ineffective assistance from his non-lawyer agent at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had not formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, failed to adequately explain the lengthy delay, and did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal had merit.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Assessment Review Board dismissing their property tax assessment appeals for failing to comply with filing deadlines.

The Board had transferred the older appeals into a 'Legacy Appeals' stream with accelerated timelines.

The applicants argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by creating this stream without formally amending its Rules and acted in a procedurally unfair manner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error of law.

The Court held that the Board had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to manage its processes and set schedules, and that any procedural irregularities in the dismissal motion were cured before the hearing.