ODC 2024

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order due to delay.

The tenant had previously appealed an eviction order, which was dismissed, and subsequently brought a motion to void the eviction order, which was also dismissed.

The tenant appealed the dismissal of the voiding order but failed to perfect the appeal by the court-ordered deadline.

Finding that the tenant's actions were a further attempt to delay the eviction, the court dismissed the appeal.

No costs were awarded as the landlord failed to file a bill of costs.

The tenant appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, resulting in an automatic stay of eviction.

The court directed the tenant to pay ongoing rent and a portion of arrears as a condition of continuing the appeal.

The tenant failed to make any payments and failed to perfect the appeal.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court found the tenant's failure to pay rent or move forward with the appeal constituted an abuse of process, quashed the appeal, and lifted the stay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order setting aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interlocutory injunction regarding a $37 million real estate transaction.

The moving party requested a stay of the order to keep the CPL in place pending the leave motion.

To avoid the time and expense of a contested stay motion, the court used its case management powers to expedite the motion for leave to appeal and granted an interim stay, conditional upon the moving party providing a $5 million undertaking in damages.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision to sanction her for breaching its Code of Conduct.

The sanctions arose from the applicant's conduct and statements, including social media posts, criticizing the board and fellow trustees.

The applicant argued the decision infringed her freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and that she was denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision was reasonable, proportionately balanced the applicant's expressive rights with the statutory objectives of the Education Act, and afforded her adequate procedural fairness.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to produce their former lawyers' file based on a deemed waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The motion judge had found that the appellants waived privilege by pleading they signed a lease extension 'without legal advice', and that they could not 'unwaive' this privilege by subsequently amending their pleadings to remove that assertion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to apply the test for deemed waiver to the amended pleadings, which no longer made the absence of legal advice a material issue.

The applicant sought judicial review of preliminary evidentiary and procedural rulings made by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) before a final decision was rendered on his workers' compensation appeal.

The applicant challenged the admission of an unsigned Medical Discussion Paper and alleged bias and Charter violations.

The Divisional Court held that the application was premature, as courts generally do not interfere in administrative proceedings until they have run their course.

The application was stayed pending WSIAT's final decision.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her for failing to maintain the cleanliness of her rental unit.

The tenant argued the Board erred by failing to consider the landlord's failure to repair her refrigerator, which she claimed forced her to store food in her bathtub.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant did not exercise diligence in pursuing the appeal and failed to raise a genuine question of law under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, as her proposed appeal merely challenged the Board's factual findings and weighing of evidence.

The moving party, who is not a lawyer, brought a motion to be appointed as litigation guardian for the appellant, who allegedly suffers from a mental disability following a motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to file the required affidavit evidence and meet the other mandatory requirements under Rule 7.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also stayed the underlying appeal pending evidence of who filed the notice of appeal and under what authority.

The applicant, a psychologist, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education and remediation program.

The applicant argued the HPARB decision was unreasonable because the ICRC failed to address his submissions regarding a significant delay in the investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the ICRC should have addressed the delay, the HPARB reasonably considered the issue and concluded the delay did not result in an inadequate investigation or a denial of procedural fairness.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy and ordering payment of rent arrears, as well as a subsequent review order denying their request for a review without a hearing.

The tenants had missed the original hearing due to confusion over receiving two different hearing notices.

The Divisional Court held that it was procedurally unfair for the Board to deny the review request at the preliminary stage without a hearing, given the genuine confusion.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Board for a new hearing solely on the issue of rent arrears, as the eviction had already been enforced.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Kristjanson J. dated August 31, 2023.

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 April 16, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

The court also directed the responding party to bring this endorsement and a prior case management direction to the attention of the judge hearing the upcoming application for directions.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of McKenzie J. dated May 17, 2024.

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

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitration award declaring September 19, 2022 (the day of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II) a paid holiday under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he failed to consider evidence of historical collective agreements and proclamations relevant to the City's estoppel argument.

However, the arbitrator's interpretation of the bilingual statutory instruments was reasonable.

The matter of estoppel was remitted to the same arbitrator for reconsideration.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy so the respondent landlord's daughter could move in.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because her evidence was rushed and the landlord's daughter was permitted to assist the landlord at the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB member reasonably controlled the process and established a fair procedure for the daughter's participation.

The court also noted that challenges to factual findings are not permitted on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy based on an N12 notice for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board erred by not requiring the landlord to use an N13 notice for renovations, and by applying a 'primary motivation' test that ignored a ten-month delay before the landlord would occupy the unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The court held that a landlord is not required to use the N13 process if they meet the requirements of section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the Board's finding of good faith was a factual determination outside the court's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had continuous impairments, they were not substantial and did not substantially restrict his activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court applied the correctness standard of review and found no error of law in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claims for a catastrophic impairment designation, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law in the LAT Vice-Chair's application of the 'but for' causation test or her factual findings that the appellant's ongoing impairments were not accident-related.

The court also held that the LAT correctly dismissed the claims for treatment plans and attendant care benefits, as the appellant had no accident-related impairments during the relevant periods.

The appeal was dismissed.