ODC 2024

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding them bound by collective agreements as successor employers under s. 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the principals engaged in a scheme to establish a non-union company and that a sale of the business occurred.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding the principal's role and the lack of prejudice from delay were supported by the record.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Review Board which found that their top-loading manure tank was not a normal farm practice due to significant non-compliance with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines.

The Board had ordered the appellants to cease using the tank within 24 months after finding the respondents were directly affected by an odour disturbance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence or its conclusion that the 166-foot deviation from the guidelines precluded the tank from being a normal farm practice.

The tenant appealed five separate Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders to the Divisional Court, obtaining automatic stays of eviction.

The tenant failed to perfect the appeals, order transcripts, or pay rent and arrears as directed by the court.

The court found the tenant was abusing the court's process to delay eviction while profiting from subtenancies.

Two appeals were dismissed as abandoned, and the remaining three were quashed for delay and abuse of process.

The stays of eviction were lifted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the landlords.

The self-represented applicant, who is incarcerated, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion for default judgment against his former lawyer due to improper service.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that while the applicant formed the intention to appeal in time, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not meet the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

Following the successful motion to quash the tenant's appeal as an abuse of process, the landlord sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,264.74.

The tenant made no submissions on costs.

The court noted the tenant's conduct lengthened the proceedings but also recognized that some additional time was related to the tenant's requests for accommodation due to mobility issues.

The court reduced the requested amount and ordered the tenant to pay costs of $13,000 to the landlord.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) upholding the dismissal of his complaints against seven police officers.

The complaints alleged police misconduct related to investigations of conflicts arising from a family law dispute, including recording an incorrect witness name, failing to meet disclosure obligations, and failing to enforce COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers acted in good faith and within their discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 20, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $8,213.01.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of R.B. Reid J. dated November 7, 2023.

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

The moving party respondent sought leave to appeal an order of Myers J. dated October 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding party/applicants and $5,000 payable to the respondents Hsin Hua Hsieh and Ying Ting Lin, for a total costs award of $10,000.

The applicant, a Member of Provincial Parliament, sought judicial review of a censure decision by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario following her social media posts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The respondents moved to strike the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, holding that the censure and the motion leading to it fell squarely within the established categories of parliamentary privilege, specifically the control over debates and proceedings and the disciplinary authority over members.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter, even on Charter grounds.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to file a judicial review application.

The underlying dispute involved a duty of fair representation complaint against her union following an arbitration that reinstated her without compensation.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision, and noting that the proposed fresh evidence would not have altered the outcome.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for an interim stay pending an application for judicial review.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of the motion.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, ordering that the interim interim stay remain in place until the motion is heard, the application is decided, or the parties consent to lift it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) moved for an order sealing part of the record in an underlying application for judicial review and preventing further dissemination of the documents.

The documents were found by an adjudicator to be covered by solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant and the affiant opposed the motion.

The court granted the sealing order, finding that the criteria in Sherman Estate were met and that opening the documents to the public before the proceedings were decided would irreparably compromise the privilege and secrecy.

The appellant was assaulted by her husband while driving, causing her to lose control of the vehicle and strike her head.

She applied for statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the incident was not an 'accident' because the assault was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the injuries.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to consider the incident in two phases: the assault itself, and the subsequent loss of control of the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the issue of whether the injuries from the loss of control constituted an accident was remitted for a hearing.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions that dismissed his latest human rights application and denied his request for reconsideration.

The applicant alleged the decisions were unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and tainted by bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, the applicant was afforded procedural fairness despite his failure to seek leave as required, and there was no cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of impartiality of the adjudicators.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

After multiple extensions and failures to perfect the appeal, the appellant requested an adjournment on the eve of the hearing, citing a recently filed human rights complaint and an inability to retain counsel.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment, finding no reasonable prospect of the appellant retaining counsel and noting that human rights issues were not raised before the Board.

The appeal was dismissed for delay and failure to comply with court directions, though the eviction was stayed for 90 days to allow the appellant to find new housing.

The appellant father appealed a final parenting order, an order imputing income for child support, a dismissal of his request to change the child's name, and a substantial indemnity costs award of $161,606.69.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in determining the child's best interests, imputing income based on the father's failure to seek employment, or awarding costs based on findings of bad faith and domestic violence.

The appellant, who acted as an agent and landlord but was not the property owner, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding him jointly liable for a bad faith eviction under s. 57 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued the LTB erred in law by failing to apportion liability between the multiple landlords based on their respective roles, as he lacked the legal authority to sell the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the RTA is consumer protection legislation designed to balance rights between landlords and tenants, and does not require the LTB to adjudicate or apportion liability between multiple landlords.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with corporate disclosure obligations.

The court considered the factors for extending time under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the delay was short, the court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit and appeared to be a collateral attack on a prior consent order.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The single judge had quashed the moving party's appeal from a pre-hearing decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal's decision was interlocutory, not final.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge applied the correct law and made no error in concluding that the Tribunal's decision regarding the use of criminal disclosure was not a final decision.