ODC 2024

The applicant daycare sought judicial review of a Ministry of Education Director's decision refusing to approve its proposed supervisor.

The Director had previously revoked the supervisor's approval following an inspection.

When the daycare reapplied, the Director refused approval based on new, undisclosed concerns regarding absenteeism and past complaints that had not been raised as issues previously.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Director breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide notice of the case the applicant had to meet.

The matter was remitted to a different director for a fresh decision.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding the respondent eligible for funding for an attendant care benefit assessment.

The respondent suffered minor injuries in a motor vehicle accident but was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing medical condition.

The insurer argued that because the injuries were minor, the respondent was excluded from attendant care assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's interpretation that once a claimant is removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, they are no longer subject to the limits for minor injuries, and the test for services becomes what is reasonable and necessary.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated December 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the responding party.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy on the basis of the landlord's good faith requirement for his son.

The notice of appeal was approximately three weeks late.

The court applied the test for an extension of time, noting the short delay, lack of actual prejudice to the landlord, and the principle that a party should not be deprived of the right to appeal where there is no real prejudice, even if merits are difficult to see.

The court granted the extension of time on terms, including an expedited appeal and a case conference to address rent and arrears.

The court held a case management conference to address five appeals brought by a tenant against eviction orders for five different rental units.

The tenant had a history of seeking adjournments due to alleged illness while subletting the units for profit and accumulating substantial rent arrears.

The court ordered that two appeals would be dismissed as abandoned if not perfected, scheduled motions to quash the remaining three appeals, and ordered the tenant to pay all arrears in full as a condition of maintaining the stays of eviction.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the respondent.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, no costs were ordered.

The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of W.D. Newton J. dated August 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the plaintiffs (respondents) did not file a Bill of Costs, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fryer J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the responding party.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to its former property management company for breach of a restrictive covenant.

The trial judge had awarded damages that included lost profits from both the appellant and a neighbouring condominium corporation that had also terminated its contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in holding the appellant liable for losses attributable to the neighbouring corporation, which was not bound by the restrictive covenant.

The damages award was reduced accordingly.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenant had failed to pay rent for over a year and breached a court-ordered stay condition requiring ongoing payments.

Applying the Enbridge Gas test, the court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant failed to demonstrate a continuing intent to appeal, raised no meritorious questions of law, and caused ongoing prejudice to the landlord.

The stay of eviction was lifted.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Casullo J. dated September 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $4,600.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision confirming his jurisdiction over certain conductor-only grievances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the arbitrator had only determined he remained seized of the process to decide the scope of his authority, but had not yet ruled on whether the specific lead grievances were arbitrable.

The court noted that any challenge to the arbitrator's general jurisdiction should have been brought after his initial 2018 interlocutory order.

The applicants, who are neighbours of the respondent property owner, sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances.

Following legislative amendments that removed third-party appeal rights to the local appeal body, the applicants argued they had public interest standing to seek judicial review and alleged procedural unfairness and inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing, were afforded adequate procedural fairness, and that the Committee's reasons were sufficient when read in context.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a case management order that refused to adjourn a motion to strike and prohibited him from scheduling further motions before the hearing date.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.02 considering dismissal of the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the moving party failed to address the test for leave to appeal and merely challenged a procedural direction, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board confirming a statement of account for over $1.5 million in care costs for more than 200 seized sled dogs.

The applicants argued the Board erred in its evidentiary findings, including relying on hearsay and failing to make adverse credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as it was based on uncontroverted evidence from the respondent, and the applicants had failed to adduce any evidence or cross-examine the respondent's witness at the hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal which rescinded a previous order requiring the respondents to contribute over $2 million toward mining development expenses.

The Tribunal had found that an oral agreement between the parties' predecessors established the respondents' interest as a 'free carried, perpetual, non-contributing' interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and conclusion that a binding oral agreement existed.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's order setting the fair market value of a sliver of trust property at $15,000, which the respondent was required to pay to retain the land.

The appellants argued the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and sought to remit the matter for a new valuation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that when read in the context of the trial judgment and the expert reports, the trial judge's path of reasoning was clear.

The trial judge appropriately rejected the appellants' expert report, which valued the land as a stand-alone building lot, and accepted the valuation of the land to the trust to do equity between the parties.

The landlord moved to lift the stay of an eviction order granted by the Landlord and Tenant Board pending the tenants' appeal.

The tenants had failed to pay monthly rent and accumulated substantial arrears.

Despite court directions, the tenants did not provide evidence of rent payments or dispute the arrears, instead alleging the landlord was unreasonable.

The court found the tenants were abusing the statutory stay to live rent-free and lifted the stay of eviction, ordering the tenants to advise if they intend to pursue the appeal or face dismissal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision denying a municipal tax refund for a hotel property that was shut down for construction.

The applicant claimed relief under the demolition and vacant property provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to properly appeal the 2016 demolition decision and that the 2017 claim failed because the demolition occurred in the prior year.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.