Divisional Court

Following a successful appeal by the self-represented appellants, the Divisional Court determined the costs for both the Small Claims Court trial and the appeal.

The court applied the principles from Fong v. Chan, finding that the self-represented appellants were entitled to costs because they demonstrated an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity to prepare for the appeal.

The respondent was ordered to pay a total of $14,512.32 in costs and disbursements to the appellants.

The landlord obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board due to the tenant's failure to pay rent.

The tenant appealed the decision to the Divisional Court.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal related solely to the Board Member's assessment and weighing of evidence, which do not constitute questions of law as required by section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

Concluding that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and commenced for the purpose of delay, the court quashed the appeal and ordered the tenant to pay costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an employment standards claim against his former employer.

The dispute centered on the number of hours the applicant worked in October 2017.

The Board found he worked 34.5 hours, while the applicant claimed he worked up to 93 hours.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's factual finding was reasonable based on the evidence, which included a paystub and OMVIC registration documents.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant argued the Board erred in its application of s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding serious breaches and retaliation.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised only issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law.

The court also found the appeal was an abuse of process due to the tenant's failure to pay rent and delay in perfecting the appeal.

The motion to quash was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to seek leave to appeal orders of the Commercial Court.

After the plaintiff bank filed extensive responding materials, the defendants abandoned their motion.

The plaintiff sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff on a full indemnity basis, as provided by the underlying loan agreement, fixing the costs of the abandoned motion at $10,052.71.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $25,000 in unpaid fees to the respondent.

The appellant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Deputy Judge failed to read its lengthy written closing submissions before rendering the decision, and that the reasons provided were insufficient.

The Divisional Court agreed on both grounds, finding a clear denial of procedural fairness and that the brief reasons provided were incapable of meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of a residential property.

The Board had found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the property's current value and, as a result, fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value rather than determining the current value.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's approach was contrary to the Assessment Act, which strictly requires the Board to determine the current value of the property.

The matter was remitted back to the Board.

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

The tenant brought a motion to extend the time to perfect her appeal, arguing the Board failed to accommodate her disabilities by denying an adjournment and a request to participate by telephone.

The landlord brought a cross-motion to quash the appeal as manifestly devoid of merit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's motion, finding the appeal raised a valid question of law regarding procedural fairness.

The court granted the tenant's motion to extend the time to perfect the appeal, but on the condition that she pay all outstanding and ongoing rent.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for delay.

The moving party had been found guilty of professional misconduct for knowingly assisting in mortgage fraud, resulting in the revocation of his license to practice law.

The court found the moving party's reasons for delay uncompelling but noted there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The court granted the motion and set aside the Registrar's order on strict terms, requiring the appeal to be perfected within 21 days.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court expressed dismay that the appellant failed to file a proper record, transcripts, or exhibits, and instead filed an affidavit without moving to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent also filed an affidavit improperly.

The court adjourned the appeal, imposing tight timelines for the appellant to order transcripts and perfect the appeal, and ordered no costs to date.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding him liable for credit card debt.

While conceding liability for one card, he disputed liability for a VISA Gold Card on which he was a secondary card holder, arguing his ex-wife opened the account and he never signed the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's admitted use of the card rendered him liable for the balance.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant private school appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding tuition refunds to three international students who transferred to another school shortly after beginning their second year of study.

The trial judge found that the students had entered into new contracts for their second year and were unaware of the school's no-refund policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's conclusion that the refund policy was not part of the contract and that the students were entitled to refunds.

Despite dismissing the appeal, the court awarded $5,000 in costs to the appellant due to the significant time spent trying to serve the respondents, to be set off against the trial judgment.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's award of non-earner benefits to the respondent, who was struck by a bus.

The insurer argued the arbitrator failed to apply the 'continuously prevents' aspect of the test for non-earner benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably concluded the arbitrator had addressed the test in light of the evidence and the specific arguments raised by the parties at the arbitration.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing grievances filed on behalf of an employee who was placed on indefinite layoff.

The employee, a cleaner, was banned from the work site by the third-party property owner.

The employer, having no other work for the employee under the single-site collective agreement, laid her off rather than terminating her for just cause.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov and found that the arbitrator's decision was internally coherent and consistent with established labour jurisprudence regarding third-party site bans.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a non-contracting out provision for a newly created Customer Service Agent position.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because both parties had agreed in written submissions that the issue of contracting out would be left for a future arbitrator, yet the arbitrator decided the issue anyway.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by deciding an issue without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The application for judicial review was allowed in part, and the relevant portions of the award were set aside and remitted to the arbitrator.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought permission from the case management judge to commence proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice for an order in the nature of mandamus regarding a private prosecution he initiated against police officers.

The private prosecution related to a 2006 tasering incident involving his brother.

The court denied the request, finding it frivolous and a continuation of the applicant's efforts to litigate issues already decided.

The court clarified that the prior order restricting the applicant's access to the courts also applied to private prosecutions in the Ontario Court of Justice.