Divisional Court

The self-represented appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her $30,000 claim for property damage because she failed to provide proof of repair costs.

The appellant failed to perfect the appeal or upload any documents.

The court noted that while the failure to prove repair costs is a question of fact, the potential entitlement to nominal damages or procedural fairness might raise a question of law.

The court adjourned the matter, directing a case conference to reschedule the appeal and strongly urging the appellant to seek legal advice.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order regarding retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

He argued the motion judge erred by refusing to hear his cross-motion for table support, finding one child was not a dependent while taking part-time virtual courses, and awarding costs based on bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the dependency finding and upholding the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the cross-motion.

The court also denied leave to appeal costs, noting the bad faith finding was justified by the father's failure to disclose income increases.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of a final parenting order.

The motion judge had temporarily reduced the appellant's parenting time until he complied with the order, which the appellant argued was an impermissible variation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge had jurisdiction to make a temporary variation to facilitate compliance.

The court also upheld the contempt findings regarding unilateral medical decisions and withholding the children, and rejected the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction for persistently failing to pay rent on time.

The tenant argued the LTB was procedurally unfair in scheduling the landlord's applications before her own and erred in law by not excusing her deliberate withholding of rent due to maintenance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's scheduling was a discretionary matter that did not breach procedural fairness.

The Court further held that persistent late payment is a factual finding not subject to appeal, and the LTB properly considered the tenant's circumstances when declining to grant relief from eviction under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The moving party insurer sought an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a 2020 Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding income replacement benefits.

The moving party relied on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Yatar to explain the delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion on terms, noting that while finality is a central principle, the prejudice to the respondent was diluted by the fact that an appeal regarding the same benefits was still outstanding at the Court of Appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McPherson J. dated April 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision granting an eviction for purchaser's own use under s. 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in finding the property contained three or fewer units and denied her procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment and a video walkthrough.

The tenant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the evidence was available at the hearing and irrelevant to any legal error.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the number of units was a factual finding not reviewable on appeal, and the LTB reasonably exercised its discretion regarding the adjournment and evidentiary procedures.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated April 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, no costs were awarded.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Ferguson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,390.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a noting in default in a construction lien action.

The appellants had failed to deliver a statement of defence for over a year and offered no explanation for their delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in refusing to lift the default given the lack of evidence.

The court also noted the appellants improperly attempted to adduce fresh evidence without leave.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over six years after his pension was transferred to file the complaint, having pursued other litigation in the interim.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to dismiss the application for delay was reasonable, noting that pursuing other litigation does not justify delay and that the Board is entitled to control its own process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision upholding an educational institution's search for records as reasonable.

The applicant argued the Adjudicator erred by accepting a single affidavit from the institution's Privacy Officer rather than requiring separate affidavits from each staff member who conducted searches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator applied established principles, reasonably concluded the search was adequate, and accorded procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Provincial Police concluding that the misconduct of two officers, one of whom struck and killed the applicant's spouse with a police vehicle, was 'not of a serious nature'.

The Divisional Court held that the OPP was required to provide written reasons justifying its conclusion, given the severity of the incident and the statutory framework.

The court found the OPP's decision unreasonable because it merely listed generic factors without explaining how they applied to the specific officers.

The decision was quashed and remitted for a fresh determination.

The respondents sought public funding for Jewish day schools in Ontario, arguing that the failure to fund them breached their Charter rights under ss. 2(a) and 15(1).

Ontario brought a motion to strike the application on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Adler definitively decided the issues.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a reasonable prospect of meeting the Bedford/Carter test for revisiting binding precedent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the application, holding that the motion judge erred in relying on facts and circumstances that were not new and in questioning the force of the majority analysis in Adler.

The respondents brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal regarding a proposal to locate a homeless shelter.

The appellant, a corporation, admitted it had insufficient assets to pay costs but did not claim impecuniosity.

The court assessed the merits of the appeal, finding the grounds relating to prematurity and the rejection of expert evidence on domestic law to be weak.

Considering the holistic factors and the justice of the case, the court ordered the appellant to pay $7,500 into court as security for costs.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for failing to meet payment terms in a prior consent order.

The tenant argued the LTB breached procedural fairness by proceeding without notice and that she had since paid her arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 78(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act expressly permits hearings without notice in these circumstances.

The court also held that an appeal is not a de novo hearing and subsequent payments do not cure defaults that existed at the time of the LTB hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outline was uploaded to Case Center.