ODC 2024

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to extend the time to seek leave to appeal a decision dismissing her request for pre-trial mandatory injunctions against a college.

The appellant sought to force the college to change its policies before trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed appeal lacked merit because the appellant had adduced no evidence to meet the stringent test for a mandatory injunction.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent college.

The self-represented appellant sought to appeal an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant was evicted for violating an agreement to maintain the cleanliness of her unit and filed her appeal months late.

The Divisional Court provided procedural directions, explaining that the court can only hear appeals on questions of law and setting a timetable for the appellant to bring a motion for an extension of time to appeal.

The applicant sought to schedule a motion for leave to appeal and an application for judicial review from a summary dismissal by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The applicant requested that the leave motion, appeal, and judicial review be heard together by a single panel, relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar.

The court ordered that the motion for leave to appeal be heard first by a single judge, to respect the legislative deference implicit in the leave requirement, with the judicial review and potential appeal to follow if leave is granted.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a 2021 group grievance as an abuse of process.

The arbitrator had concluded the grievance was identical in substance to a 2017 grievance that was settled by a consent award.

In doing so, the arbitrator relied on her own notes and recollections from the without-prejudice mediation of the 2017 grievance, without notice to the union.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable as she failed to analyze the actual settlement agreement to determine if the union had impliedly accepted the employer's position.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The respondents moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by the applicants, a mortgage broker and its principal.

The applicants sought to quash a notice of proposal issued by the regulator and challenged the regulator's decisions regarding the publication of the notice and its refusal to publish the applicants' response.

The Divisional Court quashed the portion of the application challenging the notice of proposal as premature, finding that the pending hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal provided an adequate alternative remedy.

However, the court declined to quash the claims relating to the regulator's publication decisions, finding it was not plain and obvious that those decisions were unreviewable or did not impair the applicants' legal rights.

The claim for mandamus regarding competitors was also quashed.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding the interpretation of a Share Purchase Agreement and the calculation of an earn-out provision (Target EBITDA).

The trial judge had found that the respondents constructively dismissed two key salespeople and engaged in oppressive conduct, reducing the Target EBITDA accordingly, but refused to further reduce it by a settlement amount the respondents received for a stolen book of business.

The trial judge also refused to adjust the Lower Threshold in the earn-out formula.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's contractual interpretation or his crafting of the oppression remedy, which properly validated the reasonable expectations of the parties as set out in the agreement.

A cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board and were previously directed to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent to maintain a stay of eviction.

The tenants failed to pay, arguing they were entitled to see the original lease and a forensic accounting, and raised various constitutional arguments.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the stay, while the tenants moved for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The court lifted the stay due to the tenants' refusal to pay lawful rent, but granted the tenants an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a joint decision by the Ontario and British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioners rejecting claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over documents related to a 2019 cyberattack.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review for privilege claims is correctness.

The Court found the Commissioners correctly determined that facts existing independently of privileged communications must be disclosed pursuant to statutory duties under the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the joint investigation breached procedural fairness, finding it was statutorily authorized and the applicant had acquiesced to the process.

The appellant appealed a decision invalidating his construction lien for being commenced nine days after the 90-day limitation period.

The motion judge had held that the date of last supply stated in the Claim for Lien form was a binding admission requiring powerful evidence to overcome, despite uncontradicted evidence that the actual date of last supply was later.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider s. 6(1) of the Construction Act, which provides that a claim for lien is not invalidated by a minor irregularity, such as an incorrect date, absent prejudice.

The court permitted the appellant to raise s. 6(1) for the first time on appeal and dismissed the respondent's motion to invalidate the lien.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal as abandoned and ordered the appellant to pay costs of $350 to the respondent.

The tenants appealed an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board for breaching a consent order regarding rental arrears.

At a case conference, the court noted that the appeal appeared to raise questions of fact rather than law, and ordered written submissions on whether the appeal should be quashed.

The court also ordered the tenants to pay $9,890 in arrears and bring their 2024 rent current as a condition of maintaining the stay of eviction proceedings pending the appeal.

The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The Tribunal had dismissed his application alleging discrimination regarding a summer education program for Black youth, finding he lacked standing and the program was a valid special program under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, concluding there were no apparent grounds for relief because the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory procedural order of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding an expropriation compensation claim.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns about its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory tribunal order.

Applying established case law, the court confirmed that absent clear statutory language, there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory tribunal decision under either the Ontario Land Tribunal Act or the Expropriations Act.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it was doomed to fail for lack of jurisdiction.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant owed over $70,000 in rent arrears and failed to comply with multiple case management directions ordering him to pay ongoing rent and make modest contributions to the arrears.

The Divisional Court found that allowing the tenant to continue occupying the premises without paying rent constituted an abuse of process.

The motion was granted and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The applicant, whose first language is French, sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to remit her complaint against the Toronto Police Service for further investigation.

The applicant raised concerns about miscommunication and language barriers during the initial police investigation.

The Divisional Court found the Director's decision unreasonable because he failed to address the procedural fairness concerns regarding the language barrier and relied on having received the applicant's submissions without actually reading them, as they were in French.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to the Director.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hassan J. dated January 16, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The appellant appealed a decision from the Licence Appeal Tribunal but failed to upload materials to CaseLines or appear at the scheduled hearing.

The appellant's former counsel indicated she was no longer retained but had not filed a formal change of representation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, noting it would have dismissed it on the merits regardless, and awarded $2,500 in costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to enforce a Building Code compliance order regarding an unpermitted dwelling unit.

The application judge had found that the building official's act of looking through the window of a storage unit constituted an unlawful warrantless search of a dwelling unit and excluded the evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the official was authorized by statute to inspect the property and that looking through the window of a building not permitted as a dwelling unit did not constitute an unlawful entry into a dwelling unit.

The compliance order was enforced.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) declining to add a claim for punitive damages to a dispute over Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) claims.

Relying on its concurrent decision in Keulen v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Divisional Court held that the LAT does not have the authority to award punitive damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent insurer.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for a psychological impairment entitlement arising from a 2006 workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions, work history, multiple sources of pain, substance use, and relationship breakdown were the primary factors, and that the workplace injury was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.