Divisional Court

The appellant doctor performed a septorhinoplasty on a patient and charged professional and facility fees for the rhinoplasty component, claiming it was uninsured.

The Ministry of Health determined the entire procedure was medically necessary and therefore an insured service, requiring the doctor to reimburse the patient.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board confirmed the Ministry's decision.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding its interpretation of the Schedule of Benefits was correct and its factual determination that the rhinoplasty was medically necessary was reasonable.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fitzpatrick J. dated March 29, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding party to pay costs of $3,500 to the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Valente J. dated April 19, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay the responding party $5,000 in costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Varpio J. dated April 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no submissions on costs were made, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and awarded the moving party $2,000 in costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an associate justice's costs orders and an order dismissing a motion to increase the pre-judgment interest rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the costs orders and noted that leave to appeal the pre-judgment interest order was not required.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The Toronto Star requested records from the LCBO regarding the number of shoplifting incidents at its stores.

The LCBO denied the request under various FIPPA exemptions, arguing disclosure would endanger safety, facilitate crime, and harm economic interests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court (majority) set aside the IPC's order, finding the adjudicator misapplied the standard of proof, misapprehended evidence regarding the risk of targeted thefts, and provided inadequate reasons.

The moving party tenants sought an urgent stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending a motion to review a Divisional Court judge's refusal to extend the time to appeal.

The tenants argued they could not afford a 100% rent increase and required accommodation for disability.

The court applied the RJR Macdonald test and found that while the tenants would suffer irreparable harm, there was no serious issue to be tried because the rental unit was exempt from rent control under s. 6.1(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The balance of convenience favoured the landlord due to accumulating rent arrears.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) removed 229 dogs from the applicants' commercial dog sledding business and issued a statement of account for over $1.1 million for their care.

The Animal Care Review Board varied the account to approximately $505,000, disallowing transportation and veterinary costs and reducing boarding costs.

Both the applicants and the CAWI brought applications for judicial review of the Board's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both applications, finding that the Board's allocation of the initial evidentiary burden to the CAWI, its refusal to admit fresh evidence, and its determinations regarding the various costs were all reasonable.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to a waterfront lot leased to the respondent tenant.

The lot contained a cottage subject to a 99-year lease.

The landlord argued the property was exempt under section 5(a) of the Act as seasonal or temporary accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an annual rental of premises used seasonally does not fall within the section 5(a) exemption, which is intended for temporary accommodations for the travelling or vacationing public.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, which automatically stayed the eviction.

The respondent landlord sought to lift the stay due to significant rent arrears totaling $115,200.

The court previously directed that the stay would be lifted if the appellant failed to make proposed payments towards the arrears.

The appellant failed to make any payments and had not occupied the unit since 2020.

The court ordered the stay of the eviction order lifted.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering the dismissal of the applicants' judicial review application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The notice cited the litigation guardian's failure to retain counsel and the deficient nature of the Notice of Application.

The court found the applicants had cured the representation defect by retaining counsel.

Although the Notice of Application remained fundamentally deficient, the court granted the applicants an indulgence to file an amended pleading, staying the Rule 2.1 process pending compliance.

The applicant brought a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents.

The respondents failed to attend a case management teleconference despite being served.

The court ordered the applicant to take further steps to serve the respondents, including personal service on the corporate directors and the personal respondent, and directed the OLRB to appear at the next case conference due to the unusual delay since the case was stated in 2020.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that resulted in her eviction for rent arrears.

The eviction was executed by the Sheriff before a stay was in place, and the landlord subsequently re-rented the unit to a new tenant.

The Divisional Court held that it could not restore the tenant to the unit or order the landlord to provide a different unit.

The court also dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding multiplicity of proceedings, issue estoppel, loss of jurisdiction, and procedural fairness, finding that the LTB's distinct processes for persistent late payment and non-payment of rent were appropriate and fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant suffered psychological injuries after her son was significantly injured in a bicycle accident.

She applied for a catastrophic impairment designation under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The insurer and the License Appeals Tribunal denied her application, finding she was not entitled to apply because she was not directly involved in the accident.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by ignoring the plain language of the SABS, which allows any 'insured person' to apply for the designation.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found eligible to make a claim for a catastrophic impairment designation.