ODC 2024

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for catastrophic impairment and income replacement benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal had found that the accident was not a necessary cause of her psychological impairment and that a subsequent 2018 volleyball injury was an intervening event.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of causation, pre-existing injuries, or the intervening event.

A case conference was held to set a schedule for an application for judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The self-represented applicant had failed to serve the Tribunal and did not understand the procedural requirements, including the need for an Application Record.

The court set a new timetable, explained the nature of judicial review (focusing on reasonableness and fairness rather than the underlying merits), and strongly urged the applicant to seek legal counsel given the procedural complexities and risk of adverse costs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision striking a one-day suspension given to a union representative for unprofessional conduct during and after a termination meeting.

The employer argued the arbitration was procedurally unfair and the arbitrator applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator's refusal to hear a preliminary objection regarding evidence admissibility breached procedural fairness, the outcome of a new hearing would inevitably be the same.

The arbitrator had accepted the employer's evidence regarding the conduct but correctly applied the legal test protecting union representatives from discipline unless their conduct is malicious, knowingly false, or intimidating.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants failed to comply with court directions, did not deliver responding materials, and failed to attend the virtual hearing despite multiple notices.

The court found the appeal did not raise a valid question of law, was manifestly devoid of merit, and was brought solely to delay the eviction.

The motion to quash was granted and the stay of the eviction order was lifted.

The applicant appealed an order granting the interim partition and sale of a jointly owned home prior to trial.

The parties, former spouses, separated in 2016, with the applicant remaining in the home.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's application of the principles governing partition and sale, noting the applicant failed to establish prejudice and the respondent had been deprived of her equity for over seven years.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party tenant sought to set aside two orders of Charney J. that lifted a stay of an eviction order and granted vacant possession to the landlords, and also sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to set aside the orders, finding no error of law, fact, or breach of procedural fairness, and noting the premises had already been re-rented.

The court also denied the extension of time to appeal, citing obvious prejudice to the landlords and the tenant's failure to demonstrate any merit to the appeal.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the landlords.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlords' application to terminate the tenancy for demolition.

The tenant argued the planned work was a renovation, which would afford a right of first refusal to re-occupy the unit, rather than a demolition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB applied the correct legal test for demolition and that the tenant's arguments amounted to an impermissible attempt to reargue findings of fact.

The eviction was delayed due to the tenant's personal circumstances.

The appellant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT Vice-Chair erred in law by providing inadequate, conclusory reasons and conflating the test for 'reasonable and necessary' expenses with procedural non-compliance.

The court set aside the LAT decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $4,448 to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision that ordered them to pay the net proceeds of sale of certain lands into court as a term of dismissing a motion for a Mareva injunction.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on this specific issue.

Costs of the motion for leave to appeal were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outline was uploaded to Case Center.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Perell J. dated April 29, 2024.

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

The applicant moved before a panel of the Divisional Court to review a single motions judge's decision that reconstituted his appeal as an application for judicial review and denied a stay pending the hearing.

The panel found no error in principle in the motions judge's conclusion that there would be no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured respecting the university's autonomy in managing academic affairs.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Finance's decision denying her relief from the Non-Resident Speculation Tax under s. 20 of the Land Transfer Tax Act.

The applicant missed the four-year deadline to obtain permanent residency by 10 days due to COVID-19 pandemic delays, which disqualified her from a $510,000 tax rebate.

The Divisional Court found the Minister's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the pandemic as a 'special circumstance' that caused the delay.

The decision was quashed and remitted to the Minister for a fresh review.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario's (FSRA) decision to investigate them, issue a summons, and issue a Notice of Proposal regarding alleged contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for being premature, as there were ongoing proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the administrative process must run its course and that the statutory scheme provided an adequate alternative remedy through a de novo hearing before the tribunal.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which confirmed an administrative disposition imposed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Royal College of Dentists.

The applicant argued that the ICRC's failure to explicitly consider an expert report rendered its decision unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the failure to reference the report was not a sufficiently serious shortcoming to undermine the justification, intelligibility, and transparency of the ICRC's decision.

The court deferred to HPARB's assessment that the ICRC had considered all records obtained during its investigation.

The proposed interveners brought a late motion for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the interveners lacked a distinct perspective and sought to supplement the evidentiary record.

The Divisional Court granted leave to intervene on strict terms, limiting the interveners to five minutes of oral submissions, prohibiting them from repeating the applicant's submissions, and barring them from supplementing the evidentiary record or taking a position on the ultimate disposition.

During the hearing, the interveners attempted to rely on new evidence, which the court rejected as procedurally unfair.

The moving party (appellant) brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her appeal for delay and sought an extension of time to perfect her appeal.

The underlying appeal related to a summary judgment declaring that the respondent was not the parent of the moving party's child.

The court treated the motion as one under Rule 37.14(1)(c) to set aside the Registrar's order.

The court found that while the moving party had an intention to appeal, the delay of over two years was significant and prejudicial.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it improperly sought to introduce voluminous fresh evidence without meeting the Palmer test for admission on appeal.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) confirming the London Police Service Chief's dismissal of his police misconduct complaint.

The applicant had complained that an officer acted improperly by refusing to investigate his former partner for child abduction and by directing him to leave the police station.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the officer had properly exercised his discretion, as the children were not missing but residing with their mother pursuant to a family court order.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.