ODC 2025

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the Crown could not be compelled to answer questions on an examination for discovery in an action brought under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming binding Court of Appeal precedent that the Crown's privilege to refuse discovery can only be taken away by express statutory words.

The court also rejected the argument that the Crown had attorned to the court's jurisdiction for discovery purposes by defending the action and voluntarily participating in some discovery.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time to bring a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision, and for leave to appeal and introduce new evidence.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and the request to introduce new evidence.

No costs were awarded as no costs outline was filed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a Small Claims Court decision of a Deputy Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,711.95.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Shin Doi J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,575.

Several moving parties sought leave to appeal decisions of Dineen J. and Dow J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal brought by Nantu Kumar Ghosh, Christian Levasseur, and Tinku Ghosh because they were filed past the deadline without any request for an extension of time, and in some cases relied on unsworn materials or failed to explain the basis for leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application at a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged he was terminated due to a perceived disability after being exposed to COVID-19.

The Tribunal found he was terminated for violating workplace policies by failing to inform his spouse, a co-worker, of his exposure.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, noting that a full merits hearing is not an absolute right and the Tribunal reasonably relied on the termination letter.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation complaint against her union.

The applicant alleged the union acted discriminatorily and arbitrarily by refusing to file an individual grievance regarding her bumping rights, opting instead for a policy grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable and holding that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by dismissing the complaint without an oral hearing.

The moving party, who resides in Bangladesh, brought a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian for his appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court reviewed the medical and psychological evidence submitted and found it insufficient to establish that the moving party was a person under a disability incapable of understanding or appreciating relevant information about his appeal.

The motion was dismissed, but the court lifted a previous stay on the appeal, finding it was properly authorized.

The appellant was injured in an ATV rollover and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found she was not catastrophically impaired, giving little weight to the impairment ratings of her chiropractor, who had offered psychological diagnoses beyond his scope of practice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's treatment of the chiropractor's evidence, affirming that while a chiropractor may compile impairment ratings under the AMA Guides, they cannot provide medical diagnoses outside their expertise.

The appeal was dismissed.

Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that changes to the Ontario Autism Program (OAP) discriminated against a child with autism on the basis of disability.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it unreasonable.

The Court held that the Tribunal failed to provide a rational chain of analysis to support its conclusion that the child experienced adverse treatment based on her disability, as the OAP's funding caps were designed to address inequities and ensure all eligible children received some beneficial services.

The Court declined to remit the issue of disability discrimination back to the Tribunal, concluding that no rational analysis could lead to a finding of discrimination on these facts.

The appellant appealed multiple decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying her Income Replacement Benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident, as well as decisions denying an extension of time and a reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory extension and reconsideration decisions.

Regarding the merits, the court held that the LAT's procedural choice to proceed in writing was fair and that the appellant's substantive arguments raised questions of fact, not extricable errors of law.

The applicants, tow truck drivers with decades of experience, sought judicial review of O. Reg. 167/23 under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The regulation disqualified them from obtaining a tow certificate due to mandatory lifetime weapons prohibitions stemming from 20-year-old criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was not ultra vires as it reasonably aligned with the Act's purpose of combating crime in the towing industry.

The Court also dismissed the Charter challenges, holding that the evidentiary record did not establish criminal history as an analogous ground under s. 15, and that the regulatory disqualification constituted neither 'treatment' nor 'punishment' under s. 12.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash two Orders in Council (OICs) related to the expropriation of its lands for a transit-oriented community project.

The first OIC designated the lands as transit-oriented community land, removing the right to a hearing of necessity, while the second authorized the expropriation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the Auer framework to find that both OICs were reasonably within the scope of authority delegated by the enabling legislation.

The court rejected arguments that the OICs were arbitrary, discriminatory, unnecessary, or made in bad faith.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party did not seek costs or file a costs outline.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying an extension of time to request a review of a prior consent eviction order.

At a case conference, the court considered the conditions for maintaining the statutory stay of eviction pending the appeal.

Finding that the tenant had paid no rent since the LTB proceedings and owed significant arrears, the court ordered the tenant to pay $10,000 in prior arrears, 50% of recent arrears, and ongoing monthly rent to maintain the stay.

Failure to make the payments would result in the stay being lifted.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision finding he served an N12 notice of termination in bad faith and ordering him to pay damages to the tenant.

The landlord filed his Notice of Appeal nearly 60 days late and sought an extension of time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension, finding the landlord failed to demonstrate an intention to appeal within the time limit or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

In the alternative, the court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no denial of procedural fairness in the LTB's refusal to grant an adjournment, and rejecting the landlord's argument that the tenant's bad faith application was barred by res judicata.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent.

After failing to comply with a previous court order to pay ongoing rent and arrears, the stay of eviction was lifted.

The court granted the appellant a final extension to perfect his appeal by January 20, 2025.

When the appellant failed to file any materials by the deadline, the respondent requested a dismissal.

The court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the court's order.

The appellant corporation brought a motion for leave to be represented by its sole operating officer, a non-lawyer, on an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision.

The court applied Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires corporations to be represented by a lawyer except with leave.

Finding insufficient evidence of the corporation's inability to afford a lawyer and noting the proposed representative's weak ability to advance legal arguments, the court dismissed the motion.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of WSIAT decisions granting breast cancer benefits to three communications dispatchers under the firefighter occupational disease presumption.

The WSIAT had ruled that evidence of the dispatchers' lack of exposure to fire suppression hazards could not be considered to rebut the presumption.

The Divisional Court found this interpretation unreasonable, as it contradicted the plain meaning of the statute and the binding WSIB policy, which allowed the presumption to be rebutted by evidence that employment was not a significant contributing factor.

The WSIAT decisions were quashed and the original WSIB decisions denying benefits were restored.

The appellant was a passenger in a vehicle at a fast-food drive-through when a cup of hot coffee spilled on her, causing severe burns.

The insurer denied her claim for statutory accident benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the SABS.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that an improperly secured lid was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, holding that an inadvertent spill of hot coffee purchased from a drive-through is a normal incident of the risk created by the use of a vehicle, and the appellant's inability to take evasive action due to being seated in the vehicle was a direct cause of her impairments.