ODC 2023

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rahman J. dated November 2, 2022.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs of $10,000 to the responding parties other than one specific respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Regional Senior Justice MacLeod dated December 6, 2022.

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

The moving party sought leave to apply for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the prompt payment provisions of the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court established the test for granting leave in such cases, noting that adjudicators' decisions are interim and leave should rarely be granted.

The court held that the test is analogous to the conjunctive test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

Finding that the moving party did not meet this high bar, the court dismissed the motion for leave with costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision by the Law Society of Ontario's Complaints Review Commissioner, filed eight months after the decision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief as the proposed application did not challenge the reasonableness of the Commissioner's decision but rather attempted to collaterally attack a separate disciplinary finding by another regulatory college.

The court also found that granting the extension would cause prejudice to the affected licensee and constituted an abuse of process.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board that reduced a $58,672.98 statement of account for the care of 80 cats to $1,800 based solely on the owner's inability to pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary a statement of account and that considering an owner's ability to pay was not unreasonable or contrary to the statutory scheme.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions, the parties consensually resolved the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court ordered costs payable by the plaintiffs/appellants to the various defendants/respondents in the total amount of $92,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant, a racialized individual with no criminal record, applied for a Special Constable position with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

He was denied the position after failing a pre-screen background check conducted by the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB).

The TPSB refused to provide reasons or disclose the information relied upon.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that the TPSB's decision was of sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review and that the TPSB breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with reasons and an opportunity to respond.

The decision was quashed and remitted to the TPSB.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions, including three decisions from 2017 and 2019.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the applications regarding the older decisions due to excessive delay.

The applicant provided submissions, but the court found the delay of over four to five years to be inordinate with no credible explanation.

The court dismissed the applications for judicial review of the 2017 and 2019 decisions as abuses of process that were doomed to fail.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying him Income Replacement Benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The court held that the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, the correct 'but for' test for causation was applied, and there was no lack of procedural fairness during the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a pharmacist who admitted to professional misconduct for submitting false billings to the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan.

The College argued the Panel erred by not imposing standard ownership restrictions on the pharmacist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's decision was owed great deference, did not misapprehend the evidence, and reasonably balanced the principles of protection of the public, proportionality, and rehabilitation without imposing the requested restrictions.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $15,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent, to be netted against a prior costs award.

The court also extended the interim relief previously ordered until the end of the day.

The applicant, representing indirect waterfront property owners, sought judicial review of the Town of Georgina's process for addressing ownership and use of lakeside properties along a municipal road allowance.

The applicant argued the Town unfairly denied building permits and unilaterally determined road allowance boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Town's adoption of an action plan was a work in progress and did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review.

The court also declined to grant mandatory relief, noting that the ownership dispute could be more appropriately resolved through other legal processes, such as an appeal under the Building Code Act or an application under the Boundaries Act.

The proposed intervenor brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as an added party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the Ministry of Energy's conclusion that the duty to consult regarding a pipeline replacement project was satisfied.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had a direct interest in the proceeding, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with a parallel appeal.

The appellant lawyer was the subject of a Law Society discipline proceeding that was ultimately dismissed after 56 days of hearing.

He sought costs against the Law Society, which were denied by the Hearing Division and the Appeal Division.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court found that the Law Society's investigation was one-sided and procedurally unfair, and its positions on disclosure were unreasonable.

While the court upheld the finding that the proceeding was warranted at the outset, it set aside the decisions denying costs and remitted the matter to a new panel to determine whether the appellant is entitled to costs wasted by the Law Society's undue delay, negligence, or other default.

The appellant physician was found to have committed professional misconduct involving sexual abuse of a patient, resulting in the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

He brought a motion for a stay of the penalty pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience, given the public interest in a zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct by health professionals, weighed heavily against granting a stay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body that denied its applications for severance and minor variances to build two single-family homes.

The moving party argued the member applied the wrong statutory test and misapprehended expert evidence regarding street and lot frontages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the member applied the correct legal test, the evidentiary issue did not raise an extricable question of law, and the issues were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant granting leave.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed appeal did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The moving party sought leave to appeal several decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a secondary plan and zoning bylaw, alleging breaches of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds did not raise questions of law of general or public importance.

The court noted that the Tribunal's procedural decisions, including limiting cross-examination and quashing summonses, fell within its statutory discretion to control its own process and did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 26, 2022.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.