ODC 2024

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and seeking compensation for mold damage.

The Board had found the landlord failed to prove the tenant caused the mold and granted the tenant a rent abatement for inadequate ventilation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Board misstated the legal test for causation in its conclusion, the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the Board's factual finding that the tenant did not cause the mold was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to reimburse the tenant for rent overcharges, as well as the Board's subsequent refusal to review the decision after the landlord failed to attend the hearing.

The landlord argued the Board cited the wrong statutory provision regarding parking fees and erred in rejecting its explanation of a computer glitch for missing the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test despite citing the wrong section, and that the Board's finding on the landlord's lack of reasonable diligence was an unappealable question of mixed fact and law.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The appellant occupied the home and paid no child or spousal support, arguing that his payment of carrying costs on investment properties was sufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The court noted that the appellant's failure to pay support left him with unclean hands, and his claim of high carrying costs undermined his argument that the parties could afford to retain the home pending further litigation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario placing his appeal on hold due to an administrative practice limiting individuals to two active appeals.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was premature.

Despite the applicant's submissions, the court found the IPC's letter was an interlocutory administrative direction, not a final decision.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceeding, the court dismissed the application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicants, two career colleges offering truck driving programs, sought judicial review of the Superintendent of Career Colleges' decision to revoke their program approvals.

The revocations were issued without prior notice or an opportunity to respond, following investigations into the programs.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence relevant to procedural fairness and applied the Baker factors.

The court found that given the severe financial impact, the lack of a statutory appeal right, and the applicants' legitimate expectation of progressive discipline, the Superintendent breached the duty of procedural fairness.

The revocations were set aside and costs were awarded to the applicants.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a tribunal hearing division that refused to dismiss a professional conduct application against her.

The conduct application stemmed from allegations of cheating on licensing examinations.

During case management, the respondent requested the application be dismissed as premature.

The court dismissed the judicial review application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court emphasized the longstanding principle against fragmenting administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial decision awarding prejudgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate rather than the higher contractual rate.

The respondent homeowners cross-appealed the trial judge's award of damages for two change orders and the refusal to award damages for deficiencies covered by a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal.

The court found the trial judge did not err in the interest award because the contractor had withdrawn its claim for the contractual rate at trial.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings that the change orders were payable as extras and that the LAT had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement regarding deficiencies.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Sutherland J. dated June 11, 2024.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $1,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties who appeared, with the amount reduced due to the failure to file a cost outline.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated June 13, 2024.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Stewart J. dated June 3, 2024.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a prior decision, and for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Akazaki J. dated August 12, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an endorsement of the lower court.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no submissions regarding costs, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated July 4, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As both parties were self-represented and no costs submissions were filed, no costs were awarded.

The applicants brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the Registrar in an application for judicial review of a decision refusing reimbursement for burial site investigation costs.

The court held a case conference and summarily struck the affidavit, finding it was inadmissible as it went beyond providing general background and improperly sought to supplement the decision-maker's reasons with post-decision commentary and factual assertions.

The appellant sought to appeal a default judgment ordering him to pay $20,285 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that its jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final orders for a single payment of not more than $50,000, exclusive of costs but inclusive of pre-judgment interest.

Because the total payment ordered, including interest, amounted to $50,918.83, the appeal must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to the Divisional Court.

The respondents requested the court initiate the process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the proceeding.

The court found that there is no statutory right or jurisdiction to seek leave to appeal from a decision of the IPC to the Divisional Court.

The proceeding was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment and costs decision resulting from four consolidated actions related to a construction project.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence (trucking invoices and dump tickets) without requiring the truck drivers to testify, and by misapprehending evidence regarding soil quality and excavation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly admitted the documents under the principled approach to hearsay through viva voce testimony, especially since the appellants had not objected at trial and had taken an 'all or nothing' approach by alleging fraud.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the poor soil conditions and the necessity of trucking soil offsite.

The appeal regarding the apportionment of storage costs for a Ferrari given as compensation was also dismissed.