Divisional Court

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her entitlement to attendant care benefits following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law, and that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, as the case did not present exceptional circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision by the Law Society of Ontario's Complaints Review Commissioner, filed eight months after the decision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief as the proposed application did not challenge the reasonableness of the Commissioner's decision but rather attempted to collaterally attack a separate disciplinary finding by another regulatory college.

The court also found that granting the extension would cause prejudice to the affected licensee and constituted an abuse of process.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 17, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded because the responding party failed to file a Costs Outline.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying him Income Replacement Benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable question of law.

The court held that the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, the correct 'but for' test for causation was applied, and there was no lack of procedural fairness during the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions, including three decisions from 2017 and 2019.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the applications regarding the older decisions due to excessive delay.

The applicant provided submissions, but the court found the delay of over four to five years to be inordinate with no credible explanation.

The court dismissed the applications for judicial review of the 2017 and 2019 decisions as abuses of process that were doomed to fail.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a pharmacist who admitted to professional misconduct for submitting false billings to the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan.

The College argued the Panel erred by not imposing standard ownership restrictions on the pharmacist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's decision was owed great deference, did not misapprehend the evidence, and reasonably balanced the principles of protection of the public, proportionality, and rehabilitation without imposing the requested restrictions.

The applicant, representing indirect waterfront property owners, sought judicial review of the Town of Georgina's process for addressing ownership and use of lakeside properties along a municipal road allowance.

The applicant argued the Town unfairly denied building permits and unilaterally determined road allowance boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Town's adoption of an action plan was a work in progress and did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review.

The court also declined to grant mandatory relief, noting that the ownership dispute could be more appropriately resolved through other legal processes, such as an appeal under the Building Code Act or an application under the Boundaries Act.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $15,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent, to be netted against a prior costs award.

The court also extended the interim relief previously ordered until the end of the day.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the impugned order was final, meaning an appeal could be brought as of right.

The court set a deadline for any motion to extend the time to appeal and ordered no costs for the leave motion.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body that denied its applications for severance and minor variances to build two single-family homes.

The moving party argued the member applied the wrong statutory test and misapprehended expert evidence regarding street and lot frontages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the member applied the correct legal test, the evidentiary issue did not raise an extricable question of law, and the issues were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant granting leave.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and $5,000 to the responding estate trustees.

The proposed intervenor brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as an added party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the Ministry of Energy's conclusion that the duty to consult regarding a pipeline replacement project was satisfied.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had a direct interest in the proceeding, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with a parallel appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,334.37 to the responding party.