ODC 2023

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed an Assessment Review Board decision classifying its property as Multi-Residential rather than Residential.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by focusing exclusively on the physical layout of the suites rather than the occupancy arrangements to determine if they were 'self-contained units'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly considered both the physical layout and the occupancy arrangements, and that the Board's application of these factors was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appellate review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) which upheld the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee's (ICRC) decision to take no disciplinary action against a nurse.

The applicant alleged that the nurse's improper application of an ice pack caused her elderly mother's death.

The court found that the clinical records attributed the death to vascular degeneration and that the HPARB's decision was reasonable.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence filed by the applicant, noting it was inadmissible on judicial review and immaterial to the clinical findings.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order refusing his motion to change a final order regarding child support arrears.

At the commencement of the appeal hearing, the self-represented respondent requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, noting that the parties were involved in another family law proceeding and a global mediation might resolve all issues.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment sine die to allow the parties an opportunity to seek a global resolution.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claims for wrongful dismissal and defamation against her former employer.

The trial judge found that the employer's statement that an invoice was 'fraudulently produced' was defamatory but substantially true, and thus justified.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in defining 'fraudulent' and in finding that the recipient of the invoice was not a client.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's contextual analysis of the defence of justification or his factual findings.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against two physicians.

The complaints arose after the physicians reported the applicant to the Ministry of Transportation for a potential visual impairment, resulting in a temporary suspension of his driver's licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the HPARB's decisions were reasonable and that the physicians had complied with their mandatory reporting obligations under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant appealed orders of the Superior Court to the Divisional Court.

At the hearing, the court raised a preliminary question regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court adjourned the appeal sine die and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue and whether the appeal should be transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board settlement order and a subsequent review order, arguing procedural unfairness because a term allowing eviction without notice under s. 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act was included without their consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the time period for the s. 78 term had expired without the landlord relying on it.

The Court also noted that even if the appeal were not moot, it would be dismissed because the Board has statutory discretion to include fair conditions in its orders, and the tenant raised no error of law.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated August 31, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 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 order dated September 8, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 2, 2022.

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

The court released an addendum to its reasons for decision dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review.

In the original decision, no costs were ordered because the panel had not received the parties' agreement on costs.

The parties subsequently advised the court that they had agreed the successful party would be entitled to $140,000 in costs.

The court varied its reasons to award the respondent $140,000 in costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated October 19, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Steele J. dated September 27, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 14, 2022.

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

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

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

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal award made under the Insurance Act following a fire at his property.

The applicant argued the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction, denied procedural fairness, and had a conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the umpire had jurisdiction to set the appraisal process and that the applicant had effectively withdrawn from the process by failing to file an appraisal brief or attend the hearing.

The court also held that the applicant's conflict of interest objection was untimely and deemed waived.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants had vacated the unit over two years prior and had not paid rent since December 2020, accumulating over $25,000 in arrears.

The tenants argued they were entitled to a rent abatement for non-repairs.

The court ordered that the statutory stay of the eviction order would be lifted unless the tenants paid the full arrears and ongoing monthly rent, noting that tenants cannot unilaterally withhold rent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.