ODC 2025

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a subsequent reconsideration decision that denied his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to poor interpretation services at the hearing and because the same tribunal member conducted the reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, as the tribunal adequately addressed the interpreter concerns and established jurisprudence permits the same adjudicator to conduct a reconsideration.

The court also found the tribunal's factual findings regarding the appellant's ability to work were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his occupancy in a non-profit housing co-operative for failing to pay regular monthly housing charges.

The appellant argued the LTB failed to address the co-op manager's non-compliance with bylaws and that the hearing was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB correctly restricted its inquiry to its limited jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any procedural unfairness during the hearing.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his application for Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) as statute-barred.

The LAT found that the insurer's May 3, 2021 letter constituted a clear and unequivocal denial of benefits, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding no error in its application of the limitation period or its refusal to extend the time to appeal.

The court also rejected the appellant's arguments regarding discoverability and the impact of subsequent correspondence from the insurer.

The plaintiff commenced a 468-page statement of claim against 38 defendants, alleging that her children's autism was caused by environmental toxins and acetaminophen, and seeking billions of dollars to fund a fecal microbiota transplant program.

A motion judge dismissed the claim against most defendants under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous and vexatious, but allowed the claims against the Bayer and Johnson defendants to proceed.

The Bayer and Johnson defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to consider the plaintiff's lack of standing, the court's inability to order the requested research funding, and the numerous hallmarks of querulous litigation present in the claim.

The action was dismissed against the remaining defendants.

The plaintiffs sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court decision.

The plaintiffs requested partial indemnity costs of $17,081.81, arguing the defendants engaged in a pattern of delay.

The defendants argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs, citing divided success on a cross-motion to strike affidavit evidence.

The court awarded the plaintiffs their requested partial indemnity costs of $17,081.81, finding the amount reasonable and in accordance with Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practice Protection Board regarding disturbances from the respondents' farm.

The Board dismissed the application and awarded costs against the applicants.

The applicants requested a review of the costs order only.

A vice-chair granted the review based on a reasonable apprehension of bias and ordered a new costs hearing.

Both parties appealed to the Divisional Court.

The respondents appealed the finding of bias, while the applicants argued the dismissal of the application should also have been overturned.

The Divisional Court quashed the respondents' appeal, finding the vice-chair's order was interlocutory.

The Court dismissed the applicants' appeal, holding the vice-chair did not err by only deciding the specific issue raised in the request for review.

The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexual abuse of a client.

The Divisional Court found that the Committee made a palpable and overriding error in its credibility assessment of the complainant.

Although the Committee rejected the complainant's allegation that the appellant touched her vagina because her evidence was inconsistent and implausible, it failed to consider how these adverse findings affected her overall reliability regarding the other allegations.

The appeal was granted, the finding of professional misconduct was set aside, and the court declined to remit the matter for a re-hearing.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that declined to set aside an initial order finding she issued a bad faith N12 eviction notice.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because she did not receive notice of the initial hearing, as it was sent to an incorrect mailing address and to her email's spam folder.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence showing the LTB relied on an outdated lease, but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

The court held that the LTB's finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not monitoring her email, which she had authorized for service, was a question of mixed fact and law outside the court's appellate jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the respondent Commission's Cost of Production Formula for chicken pricing.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to adequately explain its preference for certain expert evidence over others, rendering its reasons conclusory and inadequate.

The application was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their motion to set aside default judgments totaling approximately $115,000.

The appellants argued they were victims of identity theft, were never served with the claims, and that a fraudster had taken out the loans and hired a paralegal to negotiate on their behalf.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the Deputy Judge's findings that the appellants were properly served and that their fraudster theory defied logic.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

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

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a finding of professional misconduct and a one-month suspension.

The misconduct involved sexual harassment of employees and uncivil correspondence to clients and a client's father.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness and that the rules of professional conduct regarding incivility did not apply to communications with a client's family member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, confirming that the incivility rule applies to communications with 'any other person', and upholding the penalty and costs awards.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination claim for being filed one day beyond the one-year limitation period.

The HRTO had refused to extend the time limit, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, noting the applicant had filed a timely complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and moved with reasonable dispatch to file with the HRTO after the federal commission declined jurisdiction.

The HRTO's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for a determination on the merits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent municipality.

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

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

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party, a registered physiotherapist, sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario ordering him to receive a caution for not wearing a mask while treating a patient during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the 8-month delay was due to a lack of diligence, that the delay prejudiced the public interest in timely resolution of regulatory processes, and that the proposed application lacked merit.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a costs order arising from a parenting time motion.

Although the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, a reasonable explanation for the short delay, and there was no prejudice to the responding party, the court dismissed the motion.

The court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the moving party failed to identify any palpable and overriding error or error of law in the highly discretionary costs order.

The appellants appealed a trial decision awarding the respondent $15,270 in Charter damages for breaches of his s. 10(b) rights during a police detention.

The respondent had previously been granted a stay of criminal proceedings for the same breaches.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to properly apply the Ward test for Charter damages.

The Court held that the stay of proceedings adequately served the functions of vindication and deterrence, and that an award of damages was not an appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay the orders of the motion judge, which had authorized the release of funds.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered a stay pending appeal, noting that the underlying orders were made under the mistaken belief that the moving parties and the responding bank had been served with the motion in writing.

No further payments are to be made pending the appeal.