ODC 2023

The applicant, a crypto asset trading platform, sought judicial review of an investigation order and summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant argued the investigation was precluded by a prior undertaking and constituted an abuse of process, and that the summons violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the undertaking contained an express reservation of rights that permitted the investigation.

The court declined to decide the Charter issue, holding it should first be raised before the Commission.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, which automatically stayed the eviction.

The respondent landlord sought to lift the stay due to significant rent arrears totaling $115,200.

The court previously directed that the stay would be lifted if the appellant failed to make proposed payments towards the arrears.

The appellant failed to make any payments and had not occupied the unit since 2020.

The court ordered the stay of the eviction order lifted.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering the dismissal of the applicants' judicial review application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The notice cited the litigation guardian's failure to retain counsel and the deficient nature of the Notice of Application.

The court found the applicants had cured the representation defect by retaining counsel.

Although the Notice of Application remained fundamentally deficient, the court granted the applicants an indulgence to file an amended pleading, staying the Rule 2.1 process pending compliance.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, sought to appeal a final order of a Superior Court Judge and a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Superior Court Judge's order, as such appeals lie to the Court of Appeal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court quashed the appeal from the Superior Court Judge's order and lifted the interim stay, but granted a brief extension to allow the appellant to seek a stay from the Court of Appeal.

The appeal from the LTB decision was permitted to continue.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) removed 229 dogs from the applicants' commercial dog sledding business and issued a statement of account for over $1.1 million for their care.

The Animal Care Review Board varied the account to approximately $505,000, disallowing transportation and veterinary costs and reducing boarding costs.

Both the applicants and the CAWI brought applications for judicial review of the Board's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both applications, finding that the Board's allocation of the initial evidentiary burden to the CAWI, its refusal to admit fresh evidence, and its determinations regarding the various costs were all reasonable.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to a waterfront lot leased to the respondent tenant.

The lot contained a cottage subject to a 99-year lease.

The landlord argued the property was exempt under section 5(a) of the Act as seasonal or temporary accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an annual rental of premises used seasonally does not fall within the section 5(a) exemption, which is intended for temporary accommodations for the travelling or vacationing public.

The applicant brought a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents.

The respondents failed to attend a case management teleconference despite being served.

The court ordered the applicant to take further steps to serve the respondents, including personal service on the corporate directors and the personal respondent, and directed the OLRB to appear at the next case conference due to the unusual delay since the case was stated in 2020.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that awarded them $1,000 against a corporate auto repair shop but dismissed claims against the shop's individual owners.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in failing to pierce the corporate veil, finding the Consumer Protection Act did not apply, assessing credibility, and denying costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The trial judge correctly concluded the appellants were not 'consumers' under the Act because the vehicle was purchased for business purposes, and properly exercised discretion in declining to award costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Valente J. dated April 19, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay the responding party $5,000 in costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Varpio J. dated April 11, 2023.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no submissions on costs were made, the court made no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fitzpatrick J. dated March 29, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding party to pay costs of $3,500 to the moving parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an associate justice's costs orders and an order dismissing a motion to increase the pre-judgment interest rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the costs orders and noted that leave to appeal the pre-judgment interest order was not required.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and awarded the moving party $2,000 in costs.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to appeal two Small Claims Court decisions that vacated writs of seizure and sale, alleging the respondent relied on fraudulent debt settlement agreements with forged signatures.

At the hearing, the respondent conceded that the moving parties could bring a motion in Small Claims Court to set aside the orders for fraud under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and agreed not to raise delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, directing the parties to proceed with motions in the Small Claims Court where the conflicting evidence could be better adjudicated.

The appellant suffered psychological injuries after her son was significantly injured in a bicycle accident.

She applied for a catastrophic impairment designation under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The insurer and the License Appeals Tribunal denied her application, finding she was not entitled to apply because she was not directly involved in the accident.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by ignoring the plain language of the SABS, which allows any 'insured person' to apply for the designation.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found eligible to make a claim for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the residential tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenant's appeal challenged the Board's findings of fact regarding service of the application and whether rent had been paid.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the appeal had no merit as it failed to raise a question of law as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for the landlord's son's occupation.

The tenant challenged the LTB's findings on good faith, monetary calculations, the adjudicator's failure to question the landlord, and the adjudicators' credentials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's challenges to the good faith finding did not raise an error of law.

The court also found no legal error in the monetary calculations or the adjudicator's conduct, and held that the tenant failed to rebut the presumption of the adjudicators' competence and impartiality.

The eviction was postponed to September 30, 2023.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief of Police dismissing her complaint against certain police officers as unsubstantiated, based on an investigative report.

Before the independent review of the decision could be completed, the subject officers resigned, causing the review to be halted pursuant to section 90 of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the complaint process is held in abeyance for five years and could resume if the officers are re-employed.

The court also held that statutory secrecy provisions prevent the investigative report from being used against the applicant in other civil proceedings.