Divisional Court

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order staying his action until he paid outstanding costs orders.

The court reviewed the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) and found no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The motion judge had properly exercised discretion under Rules 57.03(1) and 60.12, noting the applicant's lack of reasonable explanation for non-payment and the weak merits of the action.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay damages for a defectively installed engineered hardwood floor.

The floor buckled because it was glued at the edges without T-moldings, contrary to standard practice, though the respondent had insisted on this installation method.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Justice's conclusions that the appellants bore the contractual risk, that the Consumer Protection Act applied, and that the individual appellant was personally liable under the contract.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action against a mortgage lender for incorrect credit reporting as statute-barred.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to consider whether the claim involved a continuous omission, whether separate injuries arose over time, or whether the appellant's physical condition tolled the limitation period under s. 7(1)(a) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle from the respondent at auction on an 'as is' basis.

The next day, the appellant discovered the vehicle was not roadworthy and required significant repairs.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the appellant's claim for damages on the basis that the appellant failed to prove the defect existed at the time of sale and failed to mitigate its damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge erred by deciding the case on an unpleaded causation issue and by treating a failure to mitigate as a complete bar to recovery.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application to evict a tenant who had smoked in his unit for 22 years.

A neighbouring tenant had vacated due to the cigarette smoke and odour, which the landlord was unable to remedy despite various efforts.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to consider the landlord's ongoing statutory obligation under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the complex fit for habitation for future tenants.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a re-hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The applicant, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, sought judicial review of a Varied Rebate Order imposing a financial penalty of over $2.9 million for receiving unlawful rebates from generic drug manufacturers.

The applicant argued that the payments were professional allowances or wholesaler fees, and challenged the Executive Officer's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of the process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Executive Officer had jurisdiction to regulate wholesalers and enforce the anti-rebate provisions.

The court also rejected the procedural fairness arguments, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no actual prejudice resulting from delay or redacted disclosure.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring her to post security for costs.

She argued the motions judge failed to properly consider her After the Event (ATE) Legal Expense Insurance as an asset in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the motions judge did consider the ATE insurance as one of several factors and there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence regarding the ATE insurance on the leave application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, which issued a caution regarding their public communications but did not refer the matter to discipline.

The applicants argued the ICRC exceeded its jurisdiction, exhibited bias, denied procedural fairness, and infringed their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the ICRC acted reasonably, did not make improper findings of fact or misconduct, and appropriately balanced Charter values.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which had set aside a Hearing Panel's dismissal of professional misconduct complaints related to mortgage transactions.

The Appeal Panel found the Hearing Panel erred in law by incorrectly defining fraud and by concluding a lawyer need not disclose material facts if they reasonably believe the lender already knows them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that a lawyer has a strict duty to disclose all material facts to a lender client, and that the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded the Hearing Panel's legal errors rendered its factual findings unsafe.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that determined two policy grievances regarding the employer's Nuclear Resourcing Policy.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's reassignment of employees to available work within their job classification did not violate the job posting provisions of the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that the arbitrator's interpretation fell within a range of reasonable outcomes, as it followed established arbitral jurisprudence and considered the collective agreement as a whole.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought to set aside an order quashing his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

He argued that the Board's consent order was invalid because his former counsel forced him to accept the settlement under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the counsel's firm legal advice did not amount to duress at law and that there was no unfairness in the prior proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial decision regarding a contract for siding installation, arguing the respondent contracted to supply defective siding.

The appellants also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence of recent siding repairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it was not fresh, reliable, or likely to affect the outcome.

On the merits, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that the contract did not include an express or implied obligation to re-sheath.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the counterclaim due to a lack of evidence regarding the cost to rectify minor Building Code transgressions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his applications as vexatious and finding he had abandoned the rental unit before the landlord changed the locks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction is limited to questions of law under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the tenant failed to identify any error of law.

The Board had ample evidence to conclude the applications were vexatious and to reject the tenant's credibility regarding alleged rent payments.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they discriminated against the respondents on the basis of sex, gender identification, and sexual orientation.

The applicants argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by admitting a radio interview, awarded unreasonable damages, and erred in finding personal liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness as the applicants were aware of the evidence and did not object, and holding that the damages and personal liability findings were reasonable.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to stay the respondents' application.

The appellants argued the application was premature because the respondents had not exhausted internal remedies under the non-profit corporation's constitution regarding the termination of their membership.

The Divisional Court agreed, emphasizing the policy against judicial intervention in the internal affairs of non-profit corporations before internal appeals are exhausted.

The appeal was allowed and the respondents' application was stayed.

The appellant wife appealed a motion judge's decision to enforce an accepted offer to settle an equalization payment for $35,000.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by enforcing the settlement despite the respondent husband's failure to provide updated financial disclosure for her proposed valuation date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in principle and correctly concluded the appellant had sufficient disclosure to appreciate the compromise she was making when she offered to settle.

The Waterloo Region District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding interest to Erbsville Road Development Inc. on expropriated land from the date of draft subdivision approval, rather than the later date of actual expropriation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 33(1) of the Expropriations Act, interest can accrue from a date preceding expropriation when the owner ceases to make productive use of the land due to the impending expropriation.

The court found the board member's determination that productive use ceased upon draft approval was reasonable.