Divisional Court

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to refer an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the doctrine of exhaustion.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review should not fragment ongoing administrative processes, and the merits of the proposed amendment would be properly decided by the Tribunal.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge dated March 7 and April 8, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

The moving parties were ordered to pay all-inclusive costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of Brownstone J. dated February 18 and March 17, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The applicant, a dentist facing disciplinary proceedings before the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) regarding allegations of sexual abuse, brought an application for judicial review seeking mandamus to compel the College to obtain an unredacted copy of a police file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court found that the administrative proceeding was not complete, as the ICRC had not yet made its decision and the applicant still had the opportunity to make submissions to the ICRC regarding the need for the unredacted documents.

The court concluded there were no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering in the ongoing administrative process.

The appellant tenant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for the landlords' family use.

She argued that her paralegal provided ineffective assistance by conceding the landlords' good faith without her instructions.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to raise the ineffective assistance issue before the LTB in a timely manner.

The majority further held that in civil proceedings, the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim against the representative, not the reversal of a valid administrative decision, and declined to extend the criminal law doctrine to this context.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits.

The LAT had found that the appellant's physician, Dr. Ofokansi, provided only a conclusory opinion on the OCF-19 form without supporting analysis or medical data.

The appellant argued the LAT should have considered the evidence of his psychologist, Dr. Reesor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 45 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule requires a catastrophic impairment assessment to be conducted by a physician.

Since the physician's assessment was entirely conclusory and entitled to no weight, the psychologist's evidence alone was insufficient to establish the claim.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they did not receive the Notice of Hearing and that the landlord's application was void for omitting a prior N12 Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination regarding receipt of the Notice of Hearing was an unappealable finding of fact.

The court also held it was bound by prior precedent regarding the validity of the application.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action against a temporary help agency for alleged employee misclassification.

The motion judge had found that the proposed common issues regarding whether the agency was an employer under the Employment Standards Act or at common law lacked sufficient commonality and required individual determinations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no systemic commonality among the putative class members' arrangements.

Leave to appeal the costs award of $333,114.05 was also denied.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision ordering eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued he was unable to pay rent due to injuries sustained when his apartment ceiling collapsed, which is the subject of a separate Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) personal injury claim.

Due to procedural errors by the tenant's counsel, the LTB did not adjudicate the merits of the rent abatement or stay request.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's findings on rent arrears but quashed the denial of abatement and stayed the eviction order, directing that the abatement and stay issues be determined by the SCJ alongside the personal injury claim to prevent injustice.

The applicants, a reporter and a newspaper, sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision that upheld the refusal to disclose the names and badge numbers of police officers subject to misconduct complaints.

The applicants argued the IPC Adjudicator failed to consider their freedom of expression rights under section 2(b) of the Charter when applying the public interest override in section 23 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the Adjudicator erred by dismissing the Charter argument solely because a formal notice of constitutional question was not filed.

The application for judicial review was granted, the IPC decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant, a Registered Practical Nurse, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding she committed professional misconduct by submitting false insurance claims to her employer's benefits plan.

The Committee had ordered a six-month suspension and other penalties.

On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court dismissed as the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing and constituted a collateral attack.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual and credibility findings, and held the penalty was not clearly unfit.

The applicant, an internationally trained legal professional, sought judicial review of the Law Society of Ontario's decision to refer his licensing application to a good character hearing.

The Law Society requested that the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found the application premature, noting that the applicant could raise his procedural fairness and jurisdictional arguments before the Law Society Tribunal.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceeding, the court struck the application as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff and the franchisee defendants brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated December 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $5,000 each and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision dismissing its application to remove a second dog from the respondent's unit.

The CAT found that the respondent's partner required the service dog as an accommodation for a disability under the Human Rights Code, and awarded $15,000 in damages for discriminatory treatment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the CAT did not err in law in its accommodation framework and did not breach procedural fairness in awarding damages or a common expense credit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court dated January 20, 2025.

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

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of three interlocutory decisions made by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice in a criminal proceeding.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process because the court lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters.

The court dismissed the motion, confirming that its judicial review powers under the Judicial Review Procedure Act do not extend to criminal orders, which fall under federal jurisdiction and the Criminal Code.

The court declined to make an order restricting the applicant's access to the courts at this time.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated October 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, subject to the quantum of costs being fixed at the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.