Divisional Court

The applicant, a high school student, sought judicial review of a school board committee's decision upholding his 20-day suspension and subsequent exclusion orders.

The discipline was imposed after the applicant made derogatory and harassing comments regarding transgender students, which he claimed were expressions of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee's decision reasonable as it appropriately balanced the applicant's freedom of religion with the school's statutory duty to maintain a safe environment free from bullying and harassment.

The appellants sought to appeal a decision declining to award costs against a law firm under s. 86(1)(b)(i) of the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court held that leave to appeal was required under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act because the appeal was solely regarding discretionary costs, and the costs order did not constitute a 'judgment' under s. 71 of the Construction Act.

Finding that the test for leave was not met, the court denied leave and dismissed the appeal.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to their rental of a parking space for their motor home due to the seasonal exemption in s. 5(a).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application of the exemption was a question of mixed fact and law, which is outside the court's jurisdiction under s. 210.

The court also dismissed the tenants' motion to introduce fresh evidence and rejected their claims of procedural fairness and bias against the Board member.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her so the landlord could move into the unit.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly balance the circumstances under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, ignored evidence that the eviction was retaliatory, and that the hearing was procedurally unfair due to the member's interventions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Board properly exercised its discretion, made an unreviewable factual finding that the eviction was not retaliatory, and appropriately managed a meandering hearing without demonstrating bias.

A case conference endorsement setting the timetable for an appeal and a motion to intervene by a proposed intervenor.

The court also directed that the appellant's 2022 judicial review application, which challenges the appointment of the discipline committee Chair under the Health Professions Procedural Code, be heard together with the appeal to avoid inefficiency.

At a case conference for an appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the self-represented appellant argued that transcripts of the trial judge's oral reasons and evidence were unnecessary because the appeal involved an issue of law.

The court held that under Rule 61.05(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the appellants bear the responsibility to order and file transcripts unless the parties agree to omit evidence or the court orders otherwise.

The court declined to adjourn the case conference or remove respondent's counsel, and warned the appellants that failing to provide the trial judge's reasons would likely result in the summary dismissal of their appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision restoring a restrictive covenant and Notice of Claim on her property.

The property was originally under the Registry Act, where a 1958 restrictive covenant was extended to 2038 by a 1998 Notice of Claim.

In 2003, the property was converted to the Land Titles system.

The appellant argued that under s. 119(9) of the Land Titles Act, the covenant was deemed to expire 40 years after its original 1958 registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conversion to Land Titles did not extinguish the rights preserved by the Notice of Claim under the Registry Act, and the covenant remains valid until 2038.

The appellant, a former tenant in rent-geared-to-income housing, brought a motion for an extension of time to seek a panel review of a single judge's order.

The single judge had previously denied the appellant an extension of time to seek judicial review of 2022 Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to form an intention to review the decision within the four-day appeal period, provided no compelling explanation for the lengthy delay, and that the underlying application lacked merit as the Board has no jurisdiction to review rent-geared-to-income calculations.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed her claim for breach of contract regarding a roof replacement and granted the respondents' cross-claim for defamation based on negative online reviews.

On appeal, the appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and raised several errors regarding contract interpretation and defamation defences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no evidence of bias, and no palpable and overriding errors in the deputy judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of four decisions by the respondent school board finding she breached the Trustee Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the full investigation reports to the applicant and the decision-makers.

The Court also found the decisions unreasonable as they lacked intelligibility, the sanctions were excessive and punitive, and the Board failed to consider the applicant's s. 2(b) Charter rights.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying a special award on housing benefits.

The insurer had unreasonably delayed and withheld benefits but agreed to pay the full amount claimed shortly before the hearing.

The LAT Adjudicator granted a special award on most benefits but denied it for housing benefits because no report on the value of renovations to the existing home was provided under s. 16(4)(c) of the SABS.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by interpreting s. 10 to require an adjudication of the amount of the benefit when the insurer had already agreed to pay the claimed amount.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody of the parties' child to the respondent mother and specifying his parenting time.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider the maximum contact principle, misapprehended evidence including family violence, ignored case law, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly focused on the child's best interests, made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the evidence, was not required to cite case law, and demonstrated no bias.

The moving party, a 50% shareholder in a marijuana retailing business, sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal three interlocutory orders granting and continuing an injunction against her.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the delay was not adequately justified and that the proposed appeals lacked merit.

The court emphasized the need for the parties to proceed to trial rather than engaging in further interlocutory litigation.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment designation and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to make a special award for benefits the insurer had delayed but ultimately agreed to pay before the hearing.

The Court also held the LAT breached procedural fairness by admitting and relying on the report of the insurer's psychiatric expert, who refused to attend the hearing for cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision to reject their proposed billboard bus advertisement, which contained messaging regarding biological gender.

The applicants argued the decision was procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and violated their freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City's process was procedurally fair and that its decision proportionately balanced the applicants' Charter rights with the City's statutory objective of providing a safe and welcoming transit system for all, including transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.