Divisional Court

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that its mobile home park was not exempt from rent control under s. 6(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appellant argued the park did not exist in 1991 and therefore could not have been occupied for residential purposes prior to November 1, 1991.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as an integral part of the premises was used for residential purposes prior to the statutory cut-off date.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the discipline panel of the Ontario College of Pharmacists dismissing his application for reinstatement.

The applicant's certificate had been revoked twice previously due to criminal convictions for trafficking narcotics and fraud.

The Divisional Court found that the panel's decision was reasonable, noting that the panel was entitled to weigh the risk to the public and the profession, reject the applicant's evidence as self-serving, and find that expert reports and educational courses were insufficient to allay concerns.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision granting primary care of a child to the respondent, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give primacy to the principle that siblings should not be separated except in extreme and compelling circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or principle.

The trial judge had properly considered the relevant provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act, expressly addressed the case law on separating siblings, and balanced all factors to determine the child's best interests.

The appellant appealed orders regarding retroactive child support, arguing the trial judge erred by using his line 150 income without deducting carrying charges and interest expenses under section 16 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the parties had agreed at trial to base support on line 150 income without further deductions.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondent sought costs of $8,665.50.

The appellant did not provide any costs submissions.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the appellant.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that two contracts were not sufficiently connected to support statutory setoff, equitable setoff, or a stay under the Construction Lien Act.

The appellant argued it was prevented from putting a full record before the court due to the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Deputy Judge's costs order.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge lacked jurisdiction to order costs for a settlement conference over which he did not preside, and erred in awarding motion costs exceeding $100 without finding special circumstances under Rule 15.07.

The court varied the costs order, requiring the applicant to pay $100 for the motion, and awarded the applicant his disbursements for the judicial review application.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order made by Justice Gilmore.

While the applicant established a bona fide intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay, the court found no merit in the proposed appeal.

The applicant failed to demonstrate conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellant denturist appealed the revocation of his licence and a costs award by the Discipline Committee.

The Committee found the appellant had provided dental services outside his scope of practice to multiple patients, including vulnerable children, and submitted 911 false insurance claims totaling over $91,000 using the identities of two dentists.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty of revocation was not unreasonable given the egregious nature of the misconduct, and the costs award of $70,000 (representing 55% of the College's costs) was based on appropriate legal principles.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved allegations of a conspiracy to defame the plaintiff, and the moving parties argued the claims against them were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct test for summary judgment and correctly concluded that the discoverability of the claims was a genuine issue for trial.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance transcending the interests of the parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claim against a university and a department chair.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, which it determined was the date the applicant was asked to withdraw for academic reasons.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application as untimely was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Chief Building Official issued building permits for a body rub parlour in a specific zoning area.

A competing business appealed the decision to the Superior Court, where the appeal judge rescinded the permits, finding the CBO's interpretation of the word 'front' in the zoning by-law to be unreasonable.

The CBO and the permit holder appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard of review.

The CBO's interpretation of the by-law was reasonable.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons appealed a penalty imposed by its Discipline Committee on a physician found to have sexually abused four female patients and committed unprofessional conduct toward a fifth.

The Committee had imposed a six-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the penalty clearly unfit and unreasonable given the gravity of the misconduct, the inconsistent factual findings regarding the physician's intent, and the need for general deterrence to eradicate sexual abuse in the profession.

The penalty was quashed and remitted to the Committee.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of sexual abuse and revoking her license.

The finding of sexual abuse was based on a romantic kiss with a vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the doctor-patient relationship had ended prior to the kiss and that the Committee breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a letter from the patient after the close of evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reversal of the burden of proof, and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the extensive history of boundary violations and professional misconduct.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing her motion to disqualify the respondent's counsel and granting a cross-motion to strike certain material from her motion record based on settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct tests for disqualification and settlement privilege, and that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance extending beyond the interests of the parties.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding him $500 for a Charter breach during a traffic stop, seeking higher damages and appealing the dismissal of his claim against the OIPRD.

The respondent police cross-appealed the finding that the traffic tickets were motivated by race.

The Divisional Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by basing the racial motivation finding solely on the officer's demeanour.

The court found no Charter breach and upheld the dismissal of the claim against the OIPRD, as there was no evidence of bad faith to overcome statutory immunity.