Divisional Court

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Parole Board decision suspending her parole and issuing a Canada-wide arrest warrant.

The applicant had continued to report to her parole officer for months after the suspension, unaware of the warrant, and was even told she had successfully completed her sentence.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying early intervention despite the usual requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Court held that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to effectively notify the applicant's parole officers of the suspension, and quashed the decision and related warrants.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decision of Cavanagh J. dated August 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs in the agreed amount of $20,000 payable by the responding parties.

A case management teleconference was scheduled to settle a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and to schedule an expedited appeal date.

The appellant appealed a Discipline Committee decision awarding $35,000 in costs to the respondents after dismissing professional misconduct charges against them.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee majority erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors by failing to apply the correct legal test, ignoring relevant expert evidence, and considering irrelevant factors such as the complainant's motivation.

The costs award was set aside.

The appellant, an Uber driver, sought accident benefits after an altercation with passengers resulted in him swerving his vehicle and injuring his knee.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, finding the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as it failed both the purpose and causation tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests from Chisolm and that the appellant's challenges were impermissible appeals of factual findings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council dismissing his complaint against a justice of the peace who convicted him of a red-light camera offence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council's investigation was procedurally fair and its decision reasonable.

The court noted that the applicant's complaints primarily concerned judicial decision-making, which falls outside the Council's jurisdiction, and that the transcript showed the justice of the peace treated the applicant fairly.

The moving party, the Corporation of the County of Renfrew, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of MacLeod R.S.J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

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

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

The applicant sought to have an application for judicial review heard by a single judge pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act due to urgency.

The court directed that the matter be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court, noting that with the advent of CaseLines, ZOOM, and coordinated case management, expedited panel hearings can be arranged for matters arising anywhere in Ontario.

The court clarified that recourse to s. 6(2) should only be had in truly exigent circumstances where administrative oversight cannot accommodate an urgent panel hearing.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Connell J. dated July 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs submissions, no costs were awarded.

The applicant cattle producer sought judicial review of a decision by Agricorp, which accepted a recommendation from the Business Risk Management Review Committee that weight gain for cattle occurring outside Ontario was ineligible for benefits under the Risk Management Program.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Agricorp's interpretation of the governing Order in Council and Guidelines was reasonable, as the provisions consistently emphasized 'production in Ontario'.

The court also found no procedural unfairness, noting the applicant had a full opportunity to make submissions and the Committee's reliance on the definition of 'Farmer' did not constitute a new issue.

The applicant veterinarian sought judicial review of an interim suspension order made by the Discipline Committee pending a hearing into allegations of professional misconduct involving the sexual assault of a minor.

The applicant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction to make interim suspension orders and that the decision lacked a proper evidentiary basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act reasonably provided the Committee with jurisdiction to make substantive interim orders.

The Court also held that the Committee's decision to impose the suspension was reasonable given the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's prior discipline and criminal history for similar conduct.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Edwards dated June 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered costs in the amount of $5,000 to be paid to the responding parties within thirty days, to be divided among them as they deem reasonable.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Chozik dated June 3, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered because the responding parties failed to upload a costs outline to CaseLines as directed by the Court.

The appellant tenant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his unjust enrichment claim for yard maintenance and snow removal on the basis that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found the deputy judge erred by deciding the case on a jurisdictional issue that was never pleaded or raised, denying procedural fairness.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Small Claims Court did have jurisdiction because the parties had previously reached a mediated settlement before the LTB that expressly permitted the tenant to pursue this specific claim in Small Claims Court, triggering the exception under s. 194(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The matter was remitted to the deputy judge for a decision on the merits.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $4,500 to the responding party.