ODC 2025

The applicant tenant sought to review a decision denying an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the applicant had not paid rent since March 2024 and his allegations against government entities did not provide a legal excuse for non-payment.

After the applicant repeatedly failed to provide a reasoned legal basis for his review motion, the court dismissed the motion as frivolous and vexatious.

The court also ordered that the applicant may not commence or continue any legal proceeding against the respondent landlord without prior written permission from an administrative judge.

The appellant, an operator of diagnostic imaging clinics, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister's requirement to reimburse over $1.1 million in facility fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by classifying the Ministry's sole witness as a 'litigant's employee with expertise' without giving the appellant prior notice or an opportunity to make submissions and call reply evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Rady J dated October 1, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Campbell J dated October 7, 2024.

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 reviewed the written materials and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,823.85, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant, a migrant farm worker, sought judicial review of decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his request for an extension of time to appeal a 2008 decision denying his WSIB claim.

The applicant argued the tribunal overlooked his diligence, miscalculated the delay, and failed to consider his vulnerability as a migrant worker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's decisions were reasonable, properly applied a holistic approach to the delay, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to compel the production of law firm trust ledgers and unredacted bank statements from the respondents.

The underlying action involves allegations of a massive international civil fraud.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the law firm trust ledgers were presumptively privileged and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption.

The Court also agreed that the 'future crimes and fraud' exception to solicitor-client privilege did not apply to civil fraud.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motion judge erred in presuming privilege over redacted entries in non-law firm bank statements without requiring the respondents to prove the privilege claim.

The issue of the unredacted bank statements was remitted to the motion judge.

Following an appeal regarding lawful rent and temporary rent accommodations during the pandemic, the respondent tenant sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court noted that the tenant succeeded on one issue but conceded the second issue late in the proceedings.

Finding that success on the appeal was divided, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that awarded the respondent tenant a rent abatement for harassment, failure to provide a parking spot, improper notice of entry, and failure to provide an exclusive mailbox.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the harassment, parking, and notice of entry issues, finding they were questions of fact not subject to appeal under the Residential Tenancies Act.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the mailbox, finding no statutory basis to imply an obligation on the landlord to provide one, and reduced the rent abatement by $200.