Divisional Court

The appellant brought a motion to perfect its appeal from a Small Claims Court decision without filing a certificate of judgment, to extend the time to perfect, and to file an amended notice of appeal.

The appellant argued that a certificate of judgment was required under Rule 61.10(1)(c) but was difficult to obtain.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the signed reasons for decision were sufficient to perfect the appeal, and allowed the amended notice of appeal.

No costs were awarded as the appellant could have been more diligent in obtaining the certificate or seeking advice from the Registrar.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that police officers discriminated against him based on race when they arrested and charged him following a neighbour dispute.

The applicant argued the HRTO's decision was unreasonable, alleging the police response was disproportionate and influenced by racial stereotypes, and that the HRTO showed bias in its credibility assessments and drawing of adverse inferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO applied the correct legal principles, its credibility findings were entitled to high deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

The appellant landlord brought a motion to vary a single judge's order that had dismissed her four ongoing proceedings against the respondent tenants.

The single judge had dismissed the proceedings because the appellant was absent, her husband was unauthorized to act as her agent, and the proceedings were improperly perfected.

On the motion to vary, the appellant was represented by counsel, curing the representation defect.

The Divisional Court granted the motion in part, permitting the statutory appeal to continue while dismissing the other duplicative proceedings.

The appellants appealed a $1,000 costs award made by an Assessment Officer to the respondents following the discontinuance of an assessment action.

The appellants argued they were ambushed with a Bill of Costs at the hearing and that the respondents claimed costs for unrelated Small Claims Court attendances.

The Superior Court set aside the costs order, finding that the late service of the Bill of Costs and the inclusion of irrecoverable attendances resulted in a serious breach of procedural fairness and errors in principle.

The court declined to remit the matter for a rehearing, finding it would be an abuse of process.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, was injured when a dental light fell from the ceiling while she was attending to a patient.

She sued the occupier for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

A jury dismissed the claim, finding the defendant had not failed in its duty to keep the premises reasonably safe.

The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was perverse and ignored evidence that the defendant had no system for maintaining the structural integrity of the lights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by some evidence, including testimony from the dentist and the serviceman who installed and serviced the equipment, and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that ordered the Registrar not to revoke the registration of a real estate salesperson who admitted to stealing from a client's home.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The Tribunal erred by relying on opinion evidence from a therapist who was not qualified as an expert, refusing to view relevant video evidence of the theft, and imposing unreasonable monitoring conditions that failed to protect the consumer public.

The interested parties appealed a motions judge's order requiring them and the garnishee, Vale Canada Limited, to produce contracts and assignment documents for an upcoming garnishment hearing.

The plaintiffs had obtained a default judgment against the defendant and sought to garnish amounts owed by Vale, alleging that the defendant had invalidly assigned its contracts to the interested parties to avoid garnishment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order production of documents relevant to determining the rights and liabilities of the parties at the garnishment hearing.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision that dismissed its application for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had refused to allow the union to amend an incorrect application filing date, finding that the amendment would cause material prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's discretionary decision to relieve from compliance with its rules was reasonable and entitled to deference, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order finding her nine-year-old child in need of protection and granting Crown wardship with access.

The child had been apprehended five times due to the mother's serious mental health decompensations and lack of a viable safety plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the predictable interruptions in care caused a risk of emotional harm to the child.

Finding no reviewable errors of fact or law, the court dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for the motion appealed from and the related motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs for the leave motion because the judge granting leave did not address costs in their order or reasons.

However, the court awarded the appellant costs of $12,500 for the attendance before the motion judge, finding it fair and reasonable that costs follow the event in the appeal.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found that rent increases for several cottage leases were void because the landlord failed to provide the required 90 days' notice under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the leases were subject to the Act and that the tenants were entitled to a rebate for the excess rent paid in the one year prior to their applications.

The municipality appealed a motion judge's decision to stay its civil action against the defendants pending the completion of related criminal fraud charges against one of the defendants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by holding that section 7 of the Charter eclipsed the established test requiring extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for a stay.

The court reaffirmed that the burden remains on the moving party to prove exceptional circumstances, and set aside the stay.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant had been terminated for safety infractions and subsequently retired and began drawing his pension without notifying the union, leading the union to withdraw his grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Board's decision that the union had not acted arbitrarily was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator had preferred the medical evidence of the respondent's physiatrist over the appellant's physiatrist, concluding the appellant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator applied the correct legal test and that weighing conflicting medical evidence does not constitute an error of law.

The plaintiff appealed an order requiring her to produce a letter sent by an accountant to her lawyer, claiming it was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's determination that the plaintiff had given a clear, unconditional undertaking during discovery to produce the letter.

Furthermore, the court agreed that the communication did not fall within the specific categories where solicitor-client privilege attaches to third-party communications.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider a previous order granting her a rent abatement and improperly proceeded in her absence due to a medical emergency.

On consent of the parties, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board committed a reversible error by failing to account for the prior abatement order.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing to be held concurrently with a new eviction application filed by the property's subsequent owner.