Divisional Court

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal and for a stay of two previous orders.

Prior to the hearing, the moving party filed a Notice of Abandonment of Appeal.

Consequently, the Divisional Court dismissed the motions as abandoned.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the respondent landlord to convert the unit to a non-residential use.

The appellants argued the Board erred by denying an adjournment, finding the landlord required possession, and refusing discretionary relief from eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues raised were questions of fact or discretionary decisions, not extricable questions of law as required for a statutory appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellants appealed an order of an Associate Justice striking out their statements of claim and dismissing their action.

The court found the notice of appeal sought unavailable relief, lacked coherence, and was unconnected to the appeal itself.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the residential tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenant's appeal challenged the Board's findings of fact regarding service of the application and whether rent had been paid.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the appeal had no merit as it failed to raise a question of law as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding a builder's licence renewal.

The LAT sought to make limited submissions on the statutory context, standard of review, procedural fairness, and statutory interpretation, without addressing the merits of the appeal.

The court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed intervention would provide a useful perspective without compromising impartiality or causing undue delay, and imposed conditions on its participation.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment on a settlement allegedly reached during a pre-trial conference.

On the return of the motion, the defendants sought an adjournment to retain new counsel, having previously indicated they would not file responding materials.

Finding the adjournment request to be a potential abuse of process to delay payment, the court granted the adjournment but ordered the corporate defendant to immediately pay the $1,650,000 settlement amount into trust on an interim basis, along with $10,000 in costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent lawyer $5,345 for unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the trial judge did not adequately advise the self-represented appellant of his right to cross-examine the respondent, and that the trial judge erred in enforcing a limited scope retainer that was not reduced to writing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge provided adequate guidance to the self-represented appellant and that the failure to put the retainer in writing did not invalidate the respondent's claim for services rendered.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he had not suffered a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in her treatment of expert evidence, violated procedural fairness by questioning an expert, misapplied the temporal requirements for assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and used an overly restrictive causation test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as the adjudicator properly applied a flexible approach to the timing of assessments and correctly considered impairments caused by the traumatic brain injury.

The applicant, an orthopedic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of certain billing claims.

The applicant argued the Board erred by admitting opinion evidence from an OHIP medical advisor who was not an independent expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably exercised its broad statutory discretion to admit the evidence.

The court noted the witness, while not a traditional independent expert or a 'participant expert' under the civil rules, possessed relevant expertise as an employee of a party and her evidence was largely factual and explanatory.

The appellants appealed an order striking their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for failing to comply with a costs order.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness and that the Associate Judge erred by not considering the merits of their claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellants were given multiple opportunities to pay the costs or provide evidence of impecuniosity.

The court also held that the rules permitting the striking of pleadings for non-compliance do not require a consideration of the underlying merits of the case.

The applicants brought an application against the Toronto District School Board regarding an error in the lottery admission process for Elementary Alternative Schools that excluded equity-deserving students.

The TDSB rectified the error, but the applicants did not understand the rectification steps until reviewing the TDSB's responding materials.

The applicants subsequently abandoned their application and sought costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicants $20,000 in costs, finding that the TDSB failed to clearly communicate its solution prior to filing its responding materials, making it reasonable for the applicants to pursue the application until that point.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Law Society Tribunal refusing his paralegal licence application after it had already been granted.

The Law Society discovered the applicant had failed to disclose a prior disciplinary sanction from the Real Estate Council of Ontario on his application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted its governing statute and by-laws to allow for the post-issuance refusal of a licence where an applicant deliberately makes a false declaration.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant had a full opportunity to be heard at the licensing hearing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, which upheld a discipline finding that she breached the Code of Ethics by failing to disclose a competing offer and a multiple representation situation.

The applicant argued she made the disclosure but the timing was unfortunate, and that the committee unreasonably found she was motivated by greed.

The Divisional Court found the underlying facts straightforward and the decision reasonable as to both liability and penalty, noting that even if her motives were to appease her client rather than financial gain, she was required to follow the Code of Ethics.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenants brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that terminated their tenancy for rent arrears.

The Board had found the landlord was exempt from rent increase guidelines, resulting in a substantial rent increase the tenants could not afford.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found that while the tenants had an intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay due to medical issues, the proposed appeal lacked merit and the ongoing accumulation of arrears caused significant prejudice to the landlord.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The tenants brought a motion to quash the landlord's appeal of an interim order by the Landlord and Tenant Board that required the landlord to return possession of their residential units following an illegal lockout.

The landlord had refused the tenants access to their units after a minor fire, despite a city order permitting access.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Board's order was interlocutory and therefore not subject to appeal.

The court also held that the landlord's appeal was an abuse of process intended to delay proceedings and subvert the tenants' presumptive right to occupy their homes.

Following a new trial where the plaintiff was successful in the main action and the third-party claim was dismissed, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in costs, noting the defendant's unreasonable failure to accept a pre-trial offer to settle.

The successful third party was awarded $15,081.60 in costs.

The court considered the defendant's status as a non-profit organization and its partial success in an earlier appeal when reducing the overall costs claimed.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Koehnen J. dated March 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.