Divisional Court

The landlords moved to quash the tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the tenants failed to comply with a previous court order requiring them to pay ongoing rent.

The court noted that the landlords' affidavit was inaccurate as it failed to disclose a partial rent payment made by one of the tenants.

Although the tenants did not file responding affidavit evidence, they expressed an intention to pay the arrears.

The court exercised its discretion to deny the motion to quash, instead granting the tenants a short extension to pay the outstanding rent, failing which the landlords could move without notice to quash the appeal and enforce the eviction.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a grievance over the workload of Special Education Resource Teachers (SERTs).

The union grieved that the board failed to provide course credit for monitoring activities.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance but issued a declaration that the board violated the collective agreement by assigning 'indirect monitoring' to be done during planning and preparation time.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the declaration, finding that the arbitrator's conclusion was unreasonable, not sought by either party, and contrary to the historical mutual understanding of the teaching process.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to stay an Ontario multi-jurisdictional class action in favour of a similar Saskatchewan class action that had been certified earlier.

The defendants argued that the principles of comity and full faith and credit constitutionally required the Ontario court to defer to the Saskatchewan certification order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge was not bound to stay the proceeding, particularly given a prior Ontario carriage decision that found the plaintiffs' counsel in the Saskatchewan action unsuitable to represent a national class.

The court also found that permitting two overlapping multi-jurisdictional class actions to proceed did not constitute an abuse of process.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Region's decision to consent to the sale of a non-profit housing co-operative to the Region's social housing arm.

The Co-op was in receivership due to financial difficulties and need for capital repairs.

The Region consented to the sale without notifying the Co-op's board or members.

The Divisional Court held that the Region's decision was judicially reviewable and that the Region breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

However, given the urgent need for repairs, the court declined to quash the consent and deferred the matter to the Commercial List where the sale motion was pending.

The moving party, a tenant with an unregistered 10-year lease, sought a stay of a judgment declaring his lease unenforceable against the responding party bank, which held a registered mortgage on the property.

The bank had moved for a writ of possession following the mortgagor's default.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the tenant were evicted, and a balance of convenience that favoured granting the stay on strict terms.

The stay was granted on the condition that the tenant pay a lump sum for arrears and ongoing monthly payments pending the appeal.

The applicant lawyer moved for a stay of professional misconduct proceedings before the Law Society of Upper Canada pending his application for judicial review.

The judicial review application alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one of the Hearing Panel members.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court also noted the applicant's delay in perfecting the judicial review application.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents $1,859,999 for injurious affection to their remaining lands following an expropriation.

The appellants argued that a previously granted parkland dedication credit settled the claim, should be set off against the damages, or that the Board erred in calculating the lost development units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court held that the parkland credit related to the expropriated land, while the injurious affection claim related to the loss of opportunity to build townhouses on the remaining land, meaning there was no double recovery.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to disqualify the respondent's counsel, Lerners LLP, due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The applicant argued that Lerners represented a key witness for the applicant in personal tax matters, creating a risk of misuse of confidential information and breaching the duty of loyalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings that there was insufficient connection between the retainers and no direct adverse interest.

The applicants, former volunteer board members of a charity, were unsuccessful in their application to set aside an election.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of nearly $100,000, including costs against the applicants' solicitor personally.

The court rejected the argument that the applicants' volunteer status immunized them from costs, but found the respondents' pre-litigation conduct warranted a reduction.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale at $30,000 plus disbursements, and the issue of the solicitor's personal liability was reserved.

The appellant ex-husband appealed a Master's order denying his request to amend his defamation claim against his ex-wife.

The proposed amendments related to statements the ex-wife made to a psychologist conducting a court-appointed custody assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that statements made during a custody assessment are protected by absolute privilege to ensure full and free disclosure in family law proceedings.

The appellant brought a motion for an immediate stay of the continuation of disciplinary proceedings commenced against her by the Law Society of Upper Canada, pending the hearing of her appeal and judicial review.

She alleged prosecutorial misconduct and a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Hearing Panel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to establish that the balance of convenience was in her favour or that she would suffer irreparable harm if the hearing progressed to its conclusion.

The court also declined to remit the matter to a previous judge for reconsideration.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal from a decision refusing certification of a class action, and the dismissal of the defendant's cross-appeal regarding costs, the Divisional Court determined the costs of the appeal.

The court found that the action involved a matter of public interest, particularly given the promulgation of the Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations.

Applying section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act and Rule 57, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Small Claims Court dismissing their statement of claim on a motion by the respondent.

The motions judge provided no written or oral reasons for the dismissal, simply endorsing the record with 'dismissed'.

The Divisional Court held that litigants are entitled to know the reasons for a decision, and the complete absence of reasons made appellate review impossible.

The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted to the Small Claims Court for a new hearing before a different judge.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Adoption Services to place their international adoption on hold.

The hold was initiated after the estranged sister of one of the applicants made historic sexual abuse allegations just days before the applicants were scheduled to travel to finalize the adoption.

The Director placed the hold and required a new home study without providing the applicants an opportunity to respond or detailing the allegations.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Director breached procedural fairness by failing to give the applicants a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The court also found the requirement for a further home study unreasonable given the unchallenged expert evidence refuting the risk.

The Director's decision was quashed and the original approval was reinstated.

The appellant appealed an interim order for spousal and child support, arguing the motions judge erred by including $100,000 from a share redemption as income available for support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the Child Support Guidelines to attribute corporate income to a sole shareholder.

The court also admitted fresh evidence that confirmed the availability of the funds, noting any necessary adjustments could be made at the upcoming trial.

The applicant Union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its grievances.

The Union argued that work paid as maintenance under the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement was actually construction and should have been paid at a higher scale under the Principal Agreement.

The Board found the Union was estopped from relying on the Principal Agreement because its business agent agreed the work would be done under the GPMA.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's application of estoppel, despite section 162 of the Labour Relations Act, was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an eviction order.

The appellants argued they did not receive a fair hearing due to mental illness and that the Tribunal failed to inquire whether the landlord accommodated the disability regarding late rent payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal Member provided adequate guidance to the self-represented appellant and that there was no evidence the landlord was ever advised of the disability during the tenancy.