Divisional Court

The appellant brought two motions: one to set aside a costs order made by a single judge on an abandoned motion for leave to appeal, and another for leave to appeal a reconsideration decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions.

The court found no error in the costs order, noting the appellant could have simply requested reasons under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act instead of bringing a motion.

The court also denied leave to appeal the tribunal's decision, agreeing that the appellant lacked standing under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act because he did not make oral or written submissions at the statutory public meeting.

The appellant tenant appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his applications as abandoned.

The appellant failed to attend the initial hearing and later left a review hearing after his request for an adjournment was denied.

The Divisional Court found no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice, holding that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion to deny the adjournment and manage its own procedure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent Commission brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to challenge a 2017 decision of the Commission regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother, an issue already decided in a prior 2019 decision.

The court found the application to be an abuse of process, noting the applicant's misuse of fee waivers and improper direct communications with judges.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to appear to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to further restrictions.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding Newcastle Salvage liable for $3,304.95 in damages caused when a disposal bin caught on overhead wires.

The appellants argued that the trial judge breached principles of natural justice by adding Newcastle Salvage as a defendant during the trial and proceeding immediately to judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Newcastle Salvage had notice of the claim, had filed a defence, and its representative was present at trial and given a full opportunity to present a defence.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied Small Claims Court rules and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatric report prepared after the Director's decision, which was admissible under s. 64(1) of O. Reg. 222/98.

The Tribunal also misapprehended medical imaging evidence regarding the appellant's physical condition and failed to consider medical opinions relating to his depression.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatrist's report prepared after the Director's decision, which corroborated the appellant's physical and mental conditions.

The matter was remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal for a rehearing.

The appellant's vehicle was damaged in a motor vehicle accident for which she was not at fault.

Her insurer paid for the repairs, but she brought a Small Claims Court action seeking additional compensation for the diminished value of her vehicle.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the insurer had validly exercised its right to repair the vehicle under section 6.6 of the standard Ontario Auto Policy (OAP) rather than pay for the damage.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's decision, concluding that the insurer's failure to provide formal written notice did not vitiate its election to repair, and that the insurer fulfilled its contractual obligation by paying for the repairs.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his 16-year-old counterclaim for solicitor's negligence due to delay.

The appellant argued the Master applied the wrong rule, made palpable and overriding errors regarding his explanation for the delay and the resulting prejudice, and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his financial situation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding the Master correctly applied Rule 48.14, made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the delay or prejudice, and that the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering him to vacate a property so the respondent landlord could occupy it for personal use.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the parties had an agreement of purchase and sale, not a tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction to determine if the Residential Tenancies Act applied and that its factual findings of a tenancy and good faith requirement for possession were reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness regarding late-filed evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal affirming the termination of his ODSP benefits.

His benefits were terminated because he was absent from Ontario for more than 30 days after travelling to Mexico and missing his return flight due to illness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and noting the appellant conceded he was ineligible for ODSP benefits during the relevant period because he was receiving OSAP.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision regarding the maintenance of pay equity in predominantly female workplaces.

The Tribunal had ruled that the Pay Equity Act did not require employers to use the proxy comparison method on an ongoing basis to maintain pay equity.

The Divisional Court found that while the Act itself does not violate section 15 of the Charter, the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable because it failed to consider Charter values.

The Court held that a proportionate balancing of Charter equality rights and the Act's statutory mandate requires that women in predominantly female workplaces have continued access to male comparators through the proxy method to maintain pay equity.

The City of Hamilton sought judicial review of a decision by the Mining and Lands Commissioner dismissing its appeal of a conservation authority levy apportioned by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

Hamilton argued that the levy should only be calculated using the assessed value of lands within the conservation authority's jurisdiction, rather than the entire municipality's assessment base.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's interpretation of the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulation 670, finding that the entire assessment base of the municipality is to be used in the calculation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the N5 notice of termination was void due to technical defects, specifically a missing bullet point and the inclusion of both repair and replacement costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the notice was compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act because a reasonable person would understand their options to void the notice.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay the tenant $675 for half a month's rent and a $2,000 administrative fine.

The Board found the landlord harassed the tenant, interfered with vital services, and acted in bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it raised no question of law and that the Board's findings and remedies were reasonable given the landlord's egregious conduct.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding interest and costs awarded following the expropriation of its lands by the respondent City.

The Board had calculated statutory interest based on the appellant's net interest in the lands after deducting an outstanding mortgage, and awarded costs against the appellant from the date of a Rule 49 settlement offer that exceeded the final compensation award.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation of the Expropriations Act regarding both the interest calculation and the costs award to be reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

The tenant brought a motion seeking leave to extend the time to bring a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a previous decision quashing her appeal.

The tenant had been evicted and sought an order directing the landlord to lease her comparable premises.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the proposed motion lacked merit, as the motion judge made no error in finding the tenant failed to provide evidence supporting her requests for delay at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

The applicant union brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The affidavit sought to challenge numerous factual findings made by the Board, alleging they were unreasonable or made without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the strict test that affidavit evidence is only admissible on judicial review in rare and exceptional circumstances to demonstrate a complete absence of evidence on an essential jurisdictional point.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this exacting standard, as the Board had received some evidence on the primary functions in dispute, and the affidavit merely reflected the applicant's counsel's differing notes of the proceedings.

The appellant appealed from interim and final orders of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his request for compensation for an alleged assault and criminal conspiracy.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to issue summonses to three police officers and erred in assessing a police report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellant failed to show the officers had relevant or necessary evidence, and holding that the Board's assessment of the police report involved findings of fact outside the court's jurisdiction.

A preliminary request for a publication ban was also denied.