Divisional Court

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy because his dog caused or contributed to the landlord's severe allergic reaction.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness, exhibited bias, misapprehended evidence, and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's procedures were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the evidence supported the finding that the dog exacerbated the landlord's asthma.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order making her three children Crown wards, with no access for the purpose of adoption.

She argued the Children's Aid Society failed to provide a proper written Plan of Care, the trial judge failed to consider returning the children under supervision, and the trial judge erred in denying access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law.

The trial judge properly considered the Plans of Care, correctly concluded that a supervision order would not work, and reasonably found that access would not be beneficial and would impair adoption opportunities.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor $96,580.24 for breach of contract in a construction dispute.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by allowing the respondent to split its case, making palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding construction delays, applying inconsistent evidentiary standards, misinterpreting a consent order, and demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the case splitting argument, deferring to the trial judge's credibility findings on the delay and evidentiary issues, and concluding there was no basis for the bias claim.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order that dismissed his motion to set aside an earlier order dismissing his action for construction defects.

The appellant had failed to attend the hearing where his action was dismissed.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant was out of time to appeal the original dismissal order and that there was no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the subsequent orders refusing to set it aside.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her action against her insurer.

She sought repayment of deductibles and increased insurance premiums after the insurer found her at fault for two motor vehicle collisions under the Fault Determination Rules.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the insurer incorrectly applied the rules or adequately proved her damages.

The appellant appealed a master's order dismissing her action for failing to comply with interlocutory orders and pay costs.

The appellant argued she did not attend the motion because she believed her pending motion for reconsideration at the Supreme Court of Canada operated as an automatic stay.

The Divisional Court held that a pending motion for reconsideration does not constitute a stay or prevent the court from making decisions.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law, the court dismissed the appeal.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering the return of an $18,984 security deposit to the tenant after the leased commercial premises were destroyed by fire.

The landlord attempted to raise new arguments on appeal that the lease continued despite the fire, which the court rejected due to prejudice and lack of an evidentiary record.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the tenant did not cause the fire and was not responsible under the lease for the landlord's debris removal costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants, volunteer high school basketball coaches, sought judicial review of a disciplinary decision by the Ontario Association of Basketball Officials (OABO) that suspended their membership and ordered a withdrawal of officiating services following a post-game altercation.

The court found that OABO's decision was subject to judicial review due to its broad public impact on youth sports.

The court held that the initial disciplinary hearing lacked procedural fairness, citing inadequate notice, failure to disclose evidence, and reliance on unrecorded third-party statements.

The court further found that the subsequent internal appeal did not cure these defects.

The disciplinary decision was set aside.

The appellant employer appealed a costs award of $6,000 granted to the respondent employee following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The employer argued the motions judge's reasons were insufficient and inconsistent with her findings, given the employee had rejected pre-litigation offers that exceeded the final judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge properly considered that the employer's offers did not trigger Rule 49 costs consequences and that the employee's unreasonable rejection of pre-litigation offers justified the significantly reduced costs award.

The costs decision disclosed no error in principle and was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting the respondent contractor $25,000 for unpaid renovation work and dismissing the appellant's counterclaim for defective work, delay, and lost rental income.

The Divisional Court found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, which preferred the respondent's evidence.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary decision to refuse an adjournment requested by the appellant mid-trial to introduce a previously undisclosed document.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed three Landlord and Tenant Board decisions that terminated his tenancy and dismissed his applications after he failed to attend the hearings.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was unaware of the hearing date.

The Divisional Court found it unnecessary to decide the legal issues because the parties had entered into a new renewal of tenancy agreement, rendering the appeal of the eviction order moot.

The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, but the appellant was awarded $500 for out-of-pocket expenses.

Following a successful appeal that reinstated spousal support payments, the appellant sought costs of the appeal and the original motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no bad faith conduct by the respondent but awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the appellant's more favourable offer to settle.

Noting that the claimed costs of over $116,000 were disproportionate and lacked detailed dockets, the court reduced the fees to account for duplication of effort.

Costs were fixed at $85,727.14 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act.

He argued that the Board erred in finding he met the criteria for committal, that his initial Form 1 assessment upon completion of a criminal sentence ('psychiatric gating') was defective, and that his ongoing detention violated his Charter rights.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence of the appellant's mental disorders and risk of harm.

The court also held that the initial Form 1 was validly executed and that the civil committal regime under the Mental Health Act does not constitute arbitrary detention or double punishment, and thus does not violate the Charter.

The plaintiff appealed an order removing its law firm as solicitors of record due to a conflict of interest.

The firm had previously provided employment advice to a former employee of the defendants, who was originally named as a defendant in the action but later discontinued.

The motions judge found a risk that confidential information provided by the former employee could be misused.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that because the former client had settled his issues and dropped his objection to the firm acting, there was no longer a basis to remove the firm to protect his confidential information.

A dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal on the basis of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The moving parties sought an extension of time under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to bring a motion to set aside or vary a decision dismissing their request to stay sanctions imposed by the Ontario Securities Commission for insider trading.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to form the requisite intention to appeal within the four-day window, provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that an extension would prejudice the public interest in protecting capital markets.

The court also found no apparent merit to the underlying motion.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his medical license.

The Committee found he engaged in unwanted touching of hospital employees and coercive sexual activity with a 17-year-old camp counsellor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence and upheld the penalty, finding the revocation was a reasonable outcome given the serious nature of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, and the lack of evidence regarding the risk of future misconduct.

The moving parties sought to introduce new evidence on a motion to vary a decision refusing to stay an order of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The new evidence related to steps taken by IIROC regarding the moving parties' conditional registration in Quebec.

The Divisional Court struck the new evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test for fresh evidence as it was not relevant to the decisive issue of whether the motions judge erred in refusing the stay, and it did not meet the reliability criterion.