ODC 2024

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking out his negligence claim against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The appellant alleged that FRO was negligent in handling his child support payments and reporting him to a credit bureau, arguing FRO owed him a duty to reply to his correspondence.

The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that FRO did not owe a duty of care to the appellant, applying the Cooper v. Hobart framework.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that upheld the dismissal of his application for failing to attend the hearing.

The tenant had requested an adjournment due to a scheduled rotator cuff surgery and provided medical letters, including one from his treating psychiatrist stating he would be unable to participate in the hearing process.

The LTB denied the adjournment, finding the medical opinion speculative, and proceeded in the tenant's absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB superficially rejected the medical evidence and denied the tenant procedural fairness by depriving him of an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The matter was remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (now LECA) denying his request for a review of a police investigation into his complaints of excessive force during encampment clearings.

The applicant also moved to set aside a single judge's order quashing his judicial review application against the Toronto Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge correctly applied the 'plain and obvious' test and properly concluded that the applicant had to exhaust the statutory review process under section 71 of the Police Services Act before seeking judicial review.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application against LECA, holding that the Director's decision to deny the late request for review was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a July 2, 2024 decision of Justice Black.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the single issue of whether the Anton Piller order was correctly enlarged to include the business and phone computer of one of the moving parties.

Leave to appeal on all other issues was dismissed.

The court also granted a stay of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the underlying order pending the appeal, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

The appellant's motion for leave to appeal the decision of Charney J. was dismissed as abandoned.

The responding party was awarded costs in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior decision and brought a motion for the production of documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and dismissed the motion for document production without prejudice to steps that could be taken in the Superior Court.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the responding parties.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision granting an eviction for purchaser's own use under s. 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in finding the property contained three or fewer units and denied her procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment and a video walkthrough.

The tenant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the evidence was available at the hearing and irrelevant to any legal error.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the number of units was a factual finding not reviewable on appeal, and the LTB reasonably exercised its discretion regarding the adjournment and evidentiary procedures.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction for persistently failing to pay rent on time.

The tenant argued the LTB was procedurally unfair in scheduling the landlord's applications before her own and erred in law by not excusing her deliberate withholding of rent due to maintenance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's scheduling was a discretionary matter that did not breach procedural fairness.

The Court further held that persistent late payment is a factual finding not subject to appeal, and the LTB properly considered the tenant's circumstances when declining to grant relief from eviction under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a noting in default in a construction lien action.

The appellants had failed to deliver a statement of defence for over a year and offered no explanation for their delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in refusing to lift the default given the lack of evidence.

The court also noted the appellants improperly attempted to adduce fresh evidence without leave.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision upholding an educational institution's search for records as reasonable.

The applicant argued the Adjudicator erred by accepting a single affidavit from the institution's Privacy Officer rather than requiring separate affidavits from each staff member who conducted searches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator applied established principles, reasonably concluded the search was adequate, and accorded procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over six years after his pension was transferred to file the complaint, having pursued other litigation in the interim.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to dismiss the application for delay was reasonable, noting that pursuing other litigation does not justify delay and that the Board is entitled to control its own process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister's Designee ordering him to repair and plug 62 hazardous petroleum wells owned by a bankrupt company.

The company was previously run by the applicant's deceased father.

The applicant, who had no financial interest in the company, volunteered to help his ailing father by reading meters and communicating with regulators.

The Designee found the applicant was an 'operator' under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act.

The Divisional Court held this decision was unreasonable, as there was no evidence the applicant had decision-making authority or the power to influence his father's decisions.

The application was allowed and the Designee's order was set aside.

The moving party insurer sought an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a 2020 Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding income replacement benefits.

The moving party relied on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Yatar to explain the delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion on terms, noting that while finality is a central principle, the prejudice to the respondent was diluted by the fact that an appeal regarding the same benefits was still outstanding at the Court of Appeal.

The respondents brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal regarding a proposal to locate a homeless shelter.

The appellant, a corporation, admitted it had insufficient assets to pay costs but did not claim impecuniosity.

The court assessed the merits of the appeal, finding the grounds relating to prematurity and the rejection of expert evidence on domestic law to be weak.

Considering the holistic factors and the justice of the case, the court ordered the appellant to pay $7,500 into court as security for costs.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for failing to meet payment terms in a prior consent order.

The tenant argued the LTB breached procedural fairness by proceeding without notice and that she had since paid her arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 78(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act expressly permits hearings without notice in these circumstances.

The court also held that an appeal is not a de novo hearing and subsequent payments do not cure defaults that existed at the time of the LTB hearing.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated April 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, no costs were awarded.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Ferguson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,390.

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

On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McPherson J. dated April 5, 2024.

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

The respondents sought public funding for Jewish day schools in Ontario, arguing that the failure to fund them breached their Charter rights under ss. 2(a) and 15(1).

Ontario brought a motion to strike the application on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Adler definitively decided the issues.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a reasonable prospect of meeting the Bedford/Carter test for revisiting binding precedent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the application, holding that the motion judge erred in relying on facts and circumstances that were not new and in questioning the force of the majority analysis in Adler.