ODC 2023

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions by the Bereavement Authority of Ontario (BAO) directing them to return administrative fees collected from charitable donations.

The BAO conceded it lacked jurisdiction to order refunds and requested the matter be remitted to a newly appointed registrar.

The applicants argued the BAO's conduct, including media statements, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and asked the court to decide the matter.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions and remitted the matter in its entirety to the new registrar for reconsideration, finding that the new decision-maker and the BAO's concessions warranted a fresh hearing on a complete record.

The responding party filed an application for judicial review challenging the policies and procedures of the moving party police service, following an access to information request for police records.

The moving party brought a requisition under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the application.

The court found the application was frivolous on its face because it sought to review an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision rather than a decision of the police service, and because unspecified policies and procedures cannot be judicially reviewed.

The request was granted and the application against the police service was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court defamation action, which was based on a text message sent by the respondent falsely alleging the appellant was gay.

The trial judge found that while the statement might lower the appellant's reputation within his specific church community, it was not defamatory when judged by the standard of an ordinary, right-thinking member of broader Canadian society.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the objective 'reasonable person' test.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the appellant's failure to give notice under the Libel and Slander Act was also dismissed.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed three Social Benefits Tribunal decisions upholding the denial of funding for medical cannabis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Director had no discretion to fund medical cannabis because it lacks a Drug Identification Number (DIN) and is not listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary.

The Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies and that the appellant's Human Rights Code discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as the denial of funding applied equally to all ODSP recipients.

Following the dismissal of her application as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1, the self-represented applicant repeatedly emailed the court and the judge directly, demanding explanations and information on how to appeal or complain.

The court issued an endorsement clarifying that the decision was a final disposition appealable with leave to the Court of Appeal.

Due to the applicant's repeated vexatious communications, the court directed that all future communications from her be sent to a judge and that ordinarily no response will be provided.

The appellant corporation, represented by a non-lawyer, sought to appeal a costs order and a merits order dismissing its claim.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process because the appellant failed to seek leave to appeal the costs order and the merits order exceeded the court's monetary jurisdiction.

The appellant declined to provide substantive submissions in response to the notice.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant consistently disregarded the applicable rules.

The moving parties sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision confirming a $1.5 million statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the care of approximately 200 seized dogs.

Without a stay, the dogs would be forfeited to the Crown.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties, as refusing the stay would render related ongoing proceedings moot and destroy their unique herd of dogs.

The motion for a stay pending judicial review was granted.

The applicant, a milk processor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's (DFO) order requiring the applicant to pay approximately $7 million for milk pricing adjustments.

The DFO had charged the applicant the highest price for milk after audits revealed the applicant's Milk Utilization Verification (MUV) declarations could not be verified due to inadequate record-keeping.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the regulatory scheme—that MUV declarations must be verifiable—was reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's findings that the higher price was a surcharge, not a penalty, and that the interlocutory order requiring a $3.3 million letter of credit was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for accident benefits.

The LAT adjudicator had found the appellant credible but concluded there was insufficient corroborating evidence to prove his injuries were caused by a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and holding that the adjudicator's findings of fact were amply supported by the record.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,900 all inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Verner J. dated February 27, 2023.

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

The appellant, a former lawyer whose licence was revoked following a criminal conviction for misappropriating client funds, appealed an order terminating the Law Society's trusteeship over his law practice.

He argued the motion judge erred in denying an adjournment, fixing the trustee's compensation, and authorizing the destruction of his client files after one year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the adjournment and compensation, finding no reviewable error.

However, on consent of the Law Society, the court varied the order to extend the file retention period to allow the appellant access to the files for his pending criminal appeal.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an appeal from a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 16 or 17 days beyond the 30-day deadline.

The responding party argued there is no jurisdiction to extend the time for commencing such an appeal.

The court directed that the issue of jurisdiction to extend time be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court, noting significant questions involving access to justice and the interplay between the ODSPA, the Courts of Justice Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant solicitor appealed a decision regarding an assessment hearing that he failed to attend, arguing he did not receive notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower court's conclusion that notice was properly sent to the appellant's email address and that it was reasonable to conclude he had withdrawn from the proceeding.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision allowing a breach of trust claim to be joined with a construction lien claim under the amended Construction Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the Act itself is silent on joinder, O. Reg. 302/18 expressly permits only the joinder of breach of contract or subcontract claims.

By implication, the regulation precludes the joinder of trust claims in a construction lien proceeding.

The order permitting joinder was set aside and the trust claims were struck.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the self-represented respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of King J. dated February 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J. dated January 27, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Daurio J. dated January 30, 2023.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the dismissal of a complaint against a physician.

The physician had accessed the deceased patient's hospital records multiple times after being sued for medical malpractice, without the patient's consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the HPARB and the investigating committee unreasonably interpreted the Personal Health Information and Protection Act (PHIPA).

The court held that the physician acted as an agent of the hospital, not a health information custodian, and therefore could not unilaterally access the records outside the civil litigation discovery process.