ODC 2023

The third parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Jaye Hooper J. dated February 27, 2023.

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

The moving party sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision pending her application for judicial review.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from her home and a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the issue moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown by operation of statute due to non-payment of the statement of account.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to file an affidavit demonstrating irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant appealed an interim order that dismissed her motion for spousal support and section 7 expenses for prematurity.

The To Be Spoken To (TBST) judge had previously directed the parties to attend an urgent case conference on these issues.

However, the case conference judge mistakenly treated the attendance as a motion and dismissed it for lack of urgency under the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding that the case conference judge erred by failing to follow the TBST judge's direction and by hearing a substantive motion at a case conference without the parties' consent.

The order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to schedule her motion.

The appellant tenant appealed an LTB order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

He argued procedural unfairness because the LTB member had initially dismissed the landlord's application at a hearing scheduled in error, but then reversed the dismissal and rescheduled the hearing.

The tenant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, and the eviction order was made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, as the LTB member was correcting a mistake and the tenant had received notice of the new hearing date.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which had dismissed their motion to disqualify the insurer's counsel and adjuster for alleged conflict of interest and privacy breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review of administrative decisions should not be brought until the tribunal proceedings are complete, and the applicants failed to establish that this was a rare case warranting early intervention.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that denied a motion to set aside an eviction order.

The eviction was ordered after the tenant failed to make payments required under a prior consent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the LTB's decision was based on factual findings regarding the tenant's failure to pay.

The eviction was permitted to be enforced, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The tenant filed a notice of appeal from a consent eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court quashed the notice of appeal, noting that under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a consent order requires leave of the court.

The court granted the tenant an extension to bring a motion for leave to appeal and ordered a conditional stay of the eviction order, provided the tenant pays her monthly rent and arrears within 30 days.

The court also ordered that the motion for leave and the merits of the appeal be heard together.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which had terminated their tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the unit for her own use.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by incorrectly placing the burden of proof on the tenants to show the landlord lacked good faith.

The Court also held that the Board's reasons were inadequate, as they merely stated a preference for the landlord's evidence without providing any explanation, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing before a different member.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding a union grievance regarding the payment of weekly room and board allowances under a provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued that a memorandum of agreement settling a strike had superseded the weekly rate with a daily rate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation, which reconciled the memorandum with the expired collective agreement and applied the principle that clear language is needed to remove a benefit, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The mother brought a motion for security for costs regarding the father's contempt motion and motion to change, and sought to stay the motion to change pending the father's appeal of the final order.

The father, who resides outside Ontario and has an outstanding costs award against him, brought cross-motions seeking sanctions and a written apology from the mother.

The court stayed the father's motion to change pending the appeal, finding it inconsistent with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to proceed while the appeal is outstanding.

The court ordered the father to post security for costs of $7,500 for the contempt motion and $20,000 for the motion to change, noting his non-resident status and the outstanding costs award.

The father's cross-motions were dismissed.

The tenants appealed an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board that dismissed their motion for a voiding order without notice to the landlords.

The Divisional Court held that the Residential Tenancies Act does not confer a right of appeal from interlocutory orders.

The tenants' notice of appeal was quashed, and the statutory stay of the LTB endorsement was terminated, with the tenants granted an extension to seek leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits on the basis that it was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellant had returned to work immediately after the accident but stopped working 16 months later, at which point he applied for benefits.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the doctrine of discoverability.

Following Tomec, the court held that the limitation period could not begin to run before the appellant became eligible for the benefits.

The Regional Municipality of York brought an application for judicial review seeking mandamus after the Minister failed for several years to make a decision on its environmental assessment for a wastewater project.

After the application was commenced, the Ontario legislature passed legislation that effectively repealed the requirement for a decision and mandated a different wastewater solution, rendering the application moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot constitutional and administrative law issues.

However, due to the government's 'reprehensible' delay and 'egregious' conduct in covertly passing legislation to bypass the environmental assessment process, the court relieved the applicant from a prior agreement to waive costs and awarded the applicant its costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant anesthesiologist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) that effectively suspended his practice by requiring constant clinical supervision.

The order followed incidents involving patient harm, including a death, and allegations of falsified medical records and inattention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC's decision reasonable as there was 'some evidence' of probable harm to patients and the committee adequately justified why less restrictive measures were insufficient.

The applicant lawyer sought judicial review of decisions by the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld an interlocutory suspension of her license and a costs award of over $60,000.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness, the decisions lacked adequate reasons, and the investigation was flawed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, adequately justified the risk of harm to the public, and that the applicant was not denied natural justice.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant father appealed a family law trial decision that granted primary residence and sole decision-making authority to the respondent mother.

The father argued he was denied natural justice because the trial judge refused further adjournments for health reasons and to retain counsel, and proceeded with the assistance of amicus curiae.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge went to great lengths to accommodate the father and ensure a fair trial.

The court also dismissed the father's motion to admit fresh evidence and upheld the trial judge's findings on the child's best interests and imputed income.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society of Ontario to take no further action on her complaint against a lawyer who acted as counsel to the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure considering whether to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no statutory right of appeal from the Law Society's decision and that the subject matter had been repeatedly addressed by the courts in previous proceedings.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying his motion to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant had signed an agreement to terminate his tenancy in exchange for compensation but later argued he did so under duress and due to misrepresentations by the landlord's agent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to consider the evidence of misrepresentation and the landlord's good faith as required by sections 77(8) and 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The eviction orders were set aside.

The moving party, Sussex Strategy Group Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated June 21, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order as to costs was made.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Merritt J. dated June 15, 2023.

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

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000, all inclusive.