ODC 2023

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying her claims for various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the insurer failed to properly manage her request for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the adjudicator correctly concluded that the issue of catastrophic impairment was not properly before the tribunal because the appellant had not initiated a claim or provided an evidentiary basis for it.

The court found no errors of law in the adjudicator's decision.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to apply for judicial review of an adjudicator's interim and final decisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to apply for judicial review and ordered that the adjudicator's decisions be stayed pending the final determination of the application.

The moving parties, Wrestling Canada Lutte, Tamara Medwidsky, and Lee Mackay, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of K. A. Jensen J. dated May 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 28, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Van Melle J. dated April 19, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated April 14, 2023.

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

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated June 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated December 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party did not provide costs submissions, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal, as well as leave to appeal an underlying order and costs order.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The applicant filed an application for judicial review in the Divisional Court, seeking to review a decision by the Executive Legal Officer of the Court of Appeal to delist its appeal for failing to post security for costs.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the application was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding it lacked legal merit because the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to judicially review decisions of the Court of Appeal, which is a superior court of record.

Furthermore, the court noted that court administrators have the authority to manage court lists and the delisting was a direct consequence of the applicant's failure to comply with a court order to post security for costs.

The appellant defaulted on a $15,000 business loan guaranteed by the Province of Ontario under an economic development program.

Ontario repaid the bank and later successfully sued the appellant in Small Claims Court for indemnification.

On appeal, the appellant argued the action was barred by the two-year limitation period and the doctrine of laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Ontario sued as a guarantor exempt from limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that laches did not apply because Ontario had actively pursued collection.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding they misused the process of terminating a tenancy for personal use and awarding compensation to the tenants.

The landlords argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive notice of the hearing due to an email security issue while travelling abroad.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB's conclusion that notice was received was a finding of fact not subject to appeal, and that the landlords' own version of events confirmed they improperly sought to oust the tenants to sell the property.

The appellant appealed two orders regarding child support for his two daughters.

He argued the motions judge erred by ordering him to pay 20 to 25 percent of the Guidelines table amount for one daughter while she attended university away from home, and by recalculating support for the other daughter for two specific months based on changes in shared custody.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in applying section 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine the appropriate level of support for a university student, nor in his factual findings regarding the younger daughter's living arrangements.

The appellant was denied income replacement benefits after her insurer discovered she misrepresented her address to obtain a lower premium.

The insurer subsequently charged her a retroactive premium increase.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial and refused to apply section 131 of the Insurance Act, which excuses non-compliance based on an insurer's conduct, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the LAT erred in law by conflating equitable remedies with statutory relief under section 131, which the LAT has jurisdiction to apply.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Barbara Conway dated September 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $4,500 payable by the moving party to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a final order of the Law Society Appeal Division Panel upholding decisions that found he failed to cooperate with a Law Society investigation and imposed a six-month suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no factual or legal errors in the Appeal Panel's decision.

The court agreed that the Law Society had a reasonable suspicion to investigate, the appellant was afforded a fair hearing, and the penalty and costs awards were appropriate.

The applicant, a municipal contractor, sought judicial review of a decision by the City's Fair Wage Office finding that it violated the Fair Wage Policy by failing to pay a worker the minimum hourly rate for a 'welder'.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable because the worker performed unskilled 'stud welding' rather than skilled journeyman welding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness as the applicant was given fair notice and multiple opportunities to respond.

The court also held the decision was reasonable, as the applicable Sewer and Watermain schedule did not distinguish between certified and uncertified welders, and the worker spent 90% of his time performing a form of welding.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting a rent abatement to a tenant for noise interference caused by a neighbouring child with autism.

The LTB had found the landlord failed to investigate soundproofing options.

On appeal, the landlord argued the LTB failed to consider its limitations under the Human Rights Code regarding the child's disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue was raised for the first time on appeal and the LTB's order to investigate soundproofing did not require an impermissible eviction or discriminate against the child.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal to the Divisional Court while a request for reconsideration of that decision was still pending before the Tribunal.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not final.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that it has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Tribunal, and that the time for appeal runs from the date of the final order on the reconsideration request.

The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

The court found the respondent's claimed rates and hours reasonable given the complexity of the motion and the applicant's conduct in ignoring requests for a case conference.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive.