ODC 2022

The appellant owner appealed a summary judgment finding it liable to pay a subcontractor directly for amounts owed by the contractor, pursuant to a termination agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the owner agreed to pay the subcontractor's outstanding balance.

However, the court set aside the motion judge's award of 24% interest, finding the issue was not properly addressed, and directed the parties to provide further written submissions on the proper calculation of interest.

The landlords appealed and the tenant cross-appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding an illegal lock-out and harassment.

The landlords abandoned their appeal.

On the cross-appeal, the tenant argued the Board erred in law by failing to address his claim for general damages for pain and suffering, despite finding compelling evidence of harassment and illegal lock-out.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the Board's failure to address the claim rendered the decision incapable of appellate review.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal and ordered the landlords to pay $5,000 in general damages.

The tenant appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Board had initially ordered eviction for rent arrears, but upon review, allowed the landlord to withdraw its application after the tenant paid the arrears.

The tenant argued the landlord could not withdraw the application after the hearing started.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law as the Board had granted permission for the withdrawal, and noting the appeal was moot since there was no longer a live controversy between the parties.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory decision of the License Appeal Tribunal directing her to attend insurer-requested medical examinations regarding her catastrophic impairment claim.

The Divisional Court issued a Rule 2.1 notice considering dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction over interlocutory LAT orders.

The court resolved conflicting lines of authority, affirming that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory LAT orders, though judicial review is available in exceptional circumstances.

The court struck the Notice of Appeal but granted the appellant leave to convert the proceeding into an application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding compensation for the expropriation of contaminated land.

The Tribunal had determined the property's market value to be $290,000 based on a speculative value, rejecting the appellant's higher valuation due to prohibitive environmental remediation costs.

The Tribunal also awarded $51,683 for wasted costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding market value and wasted costs.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that it was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal refused an interlocutory motion for third-party document production.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed two decisions regarding her claims for statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The first appeal challenged a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying certain attendant care benefits and setting the interest accrual date, which the Divisional Court dismissed as raising questions of fact rather than law.

The second appeal challenged a Financial Services Commission of Ontario decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for housekeeping benefits due to a 2011 consent order settling the issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding no errors of law and upholding the lower tribunals' decisions.

A group of patients sought leave to intervene in an appeal brought by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding an interlocutory stay of a s. 87 application to compel a physician's cooperation with an investigation.

The patients sought to protect their privacy interests in their medical records.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to intervene, finding it premature as the appeal only concerned the interlocutory stay and not the underlying application.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the patients' right to renew their motion if the underlying application proceeds.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing its motion to dismiss the respondent insurer's application for loss transfer indemnity under s. 275 of the Insurance Act.

The dispute arose after a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle insured by the appellant and claimed Statutory Accident Benefits under a motorcycle policy issued by the respondent to the pedestrian's father.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's findings that the priority scheme in s. 268 of the Insurance Act ranks insurers, not policies, and that the respondent was entitled to indemnification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Review and Appeal Board (HPARB) confirming the revocation of her hospital privileges by the respondent hospital.

The revocation was based on a long-standing pattern of unprofessional conduct, inability to collaborate with colleagues, and failure to improve, which jeopardized patient safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB's factual and credibility findings were firmly grounded in the evidence and that it correctly applied the test under the Public Hospitals Act and hospital by-laws.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order finding his two children in need of protection and placing them in the custody of their maternal aunt.

The father argued ineffective assistance of counsel, procedural unfairness, and errors in fact-finding regarding his sobriety and history of domestic violence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ineffective assistance claim failed because former counsel was not given notice, there was no procedural unfairness, and the motion judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and free of palpable and overriding error.

The court held that the children required stability and permanency, which the current custodial arrangement provided.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to judicially review the decision of an adjudicator.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Lavine J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The plaintiffs/appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gorman J. dated June 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 19, 2022.

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

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her defamation and negligence action against the respondent for publishing regulatory disciplinary decisions about her.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the action at a settlement conference on the basis that it was bound to fail because the publication of quasi-judicial decisions is protected by absolute privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the claims had no merit and that the action could be summarily dismissed.

The City of Mississauga sought judicial review of an IPC order requiring the disclosure of an electronic spreadsheet containing personal information of over 11,000 voters from the 2018 municipal election.

The IPC found that disclosure was expressly authorized by section 88(5) of the Municipal Elections Act, which overrides the privacy exemption in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's reliance on binding precedent and its distinction between access and use restrictions to be reasonable.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order that denied a request to review a consent eviction order.

At a case management conference, the court considered whether to lift the automatic stay of eviction pending appeal.

The court ordered the tenant to pay $12,000 in acknowledged rent arrears and ongoing monthly rent of $1,345 as a condition of maintaining the stay of the eviction order.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondents in the fixed amount of $21,000 all inclusive.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use, arguing the application was retaliatory and in bad faith under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the documents were available before the hearing and were an attempt to reargue facts.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenants' arguments regarding retaliation, the landlord's conduct, and procedural fairness were essentially challenges to the LTB's factual findings, which do not constitute extricable errors of law.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $292,000 in damages for oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The trial judge found the appellant engaged in oppressive conduct by failing to keep proper financial records, using company funds for personal expenses, and misappropriating funds through an undisclosed arrangement with another company.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of oppression and the damages awarded for loss of profits and personal expenses.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the $182,000 award for loss of business value, finding it was an error in principle because the parties had agreed to wind up the business and distribute net assets, making book value or fair market value irrelevant.