Olivia Filetti

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that her application for statutory accident benefits was time-barred.

The appellant argued the insurer's notice of refusal did not comply with s. 54 of the SABS because it failed to detail all levels of appeal and misleadingly stated a hard two-year limitation period without explaining discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 54 only requires notice of the right to dispute the refusal at the Tribunal, not subsequent appeal rights.

The Court also found the notice was not misleading, as detailing discoverability principles could detract from the clarity of the warning and confuse claimants.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court order dismissing an application for judicial review of an Ontario Special Education Tribunal decision, and a motion to reopen a previous Court of Appeal decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding them to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process.

The judicial review application was premature as the Tribunal proceedings were ongoing, and the moving party failed to meet the high standard required to reopen a previous decision.

The moving party sought reconsideration of a single judge's order dismissing a motion to stay Divisional Court proceedings.

The stay was sought to prevent the Divisional Court from issuing a publication ban and anonymization order regarding the moving party's child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for reconsideration as moot, noting that the Divisional Court had already granted the publication ban and anonymization order.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issue, finding no matter of public importance that extended beyond the interests of the parties.

The applicants sought judicial review of administrative decisions dismissing disciplinary charges against two police officers for lack of jurisdiction.

The hearing officers and the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the six-month statutory deadline under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act for serving a notice of hearing had expired.

The applicants argued that the deadline should be paused during a review by the Complaints Director.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that the administrative decision-makers reasonably interpreted the plain wording of the statute, which contained no exception for a Director's review.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by a children's aid society and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant had alleged that the child was physically abused by school staff.

The society conducted a community caregiver investigation and concluded the allegations were not verified.

The Board reviewed the society's handling of the complaint and ordered the society to provide better written reasons, but otherwise dismissed the applicant's procedural complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that both the society and the Board afforded the applicant procedural fairness and that their decisions were reasonable.

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal decision that imposed a 30-day suspension and conditions on a liquor licence rather than revoking it.

The tribunal found the licensee had breached conditions and failed to facilitate an inspection, but concluded a suspension was appropriate given the principal's health issues and lack of prior warnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's penalty and reliance on the public interest were reasonable.

The applicant, acting as litigation guardian for his child, brought three preliminary motions within an application for judicial review of decisions by the Children's Aid Society and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant sought unredacted disclosure of the Society's investigation records, the production of a hearing transcript by the Board, and the disqualification of the Board's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the request for unredacted records and the motion to disqualify counsel, finding no basis for either.

The court ordered the Board to release an informal audio recording of the hearing to the applicant so he could arrange for his own transcript, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for the landlord's mother's personal use.

The tenant argued that the absence of a hearing recording and the Board member's curtailment of cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the affidavit evidence provided an adequate record for review, the Board member reasonably limited irrelevant questioning, and the Board properly considered the tenant's circumstances under s. 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding her dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from her failure to attend internal investigations and her use of a personal Twitter account to make inappropriate comments about the Chief of Police and others.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and accommodation for her post-traumatic stress disorder, and that her dismissal infringed her Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing officer reasonably accommodated her and properly proceeded in her absence.

The Court also upheld the Commission's finding that sections 7 and 15 of the Charter were not engaged, and that her dismissal was a proportionate limit on her freedom of expression under section 2(b).

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for catastrophic impairment and income replacement benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal had found that the accident was not a necessary cause of her psychological impairment and that a subsequent 2018 volleyball injury was an intervening event.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of causation, pre-existing injuries, or the intervening event.

The appellant sought to rescind a 2002 settlement for Statutory Accident Benefits, arguing the insurer's disclosure notice failed to strictly comply with regulatory requirements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed her request, finding the notice adequate.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal erred in placing the burden of proof on the insured and applying a 'some compliance' standard instead of the bright-line test from Smith.

However, applying the correct test, the Court concluded the defects in the notice were merely technical and did not deprive the appellant of important information.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Animal Care Review Board confirming the removal of animals from his zoo and ordering him to pay $105,059.35 in care costs.

The applicant argued the Board's decisions were unreasonable due to an absence of evidence, misapprehension of evidence, and failure to consider his expert evidence and legal submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions reasonable and denying the applicant's motion to admit fresh evidence.

Following a hearing, the parties agreed that there would be no order as to costs.

The Divisional Court endorsed the agreement, making no order as to costs.

The applicants raised a preliminary objection seeking the recusal of Leiper J. from the panel on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants argued that Leiper J.'s involvement in two prior decisions involving the same parties, including a refusal to grant a stay that was later partially reversed by the Court of Appeal, met the threshold for disqualification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the objection, finding that the applicants failed to meet the heavy burden of rebutting the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, noting that prior involvement alone does not establish bias and there were no allegations of improper conduct.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The LAT found that a subsequent fall and seizure was an intervening event not caused by the accident.

On appeal, the appellant argued the LAT breached procedural fairness by allowing the insurer to raise causation late, and erred by applying the 'but for' causation test instead of the 'material contribution' test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the procedural fairness issue could not be raised for the first time on appeal, and that the LAT correctly applied the 'but for' test as this was not an exceptional case involving multiple tortfeasors.

The moving parties, operators of a dog-sledding business, sought to set aside a single judge's decision refusing to extend a stay of an Animal Care Review Board costs order regarding the care of their removed dogs.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's balance of convenience analysis, which heavily weighed the mounting public costs of caring for the dogs.

The panel also rejected a request to disqualify one of its members based on prior involvement in a related judicial review, and admitted but gave no weight to fresh evidence of a new statutory application for the dogs' return.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside a previous decision and to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court reserved its decision on the motion.

However, the court ordered that the stay of the Animal Care Review Board's decision be continued pending the release of the court's decision on the motion.

The parties were also directed to advise the court of any resolution reached at an upcoming board hearing.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board that reduced a $58,672.98 statement of account for the care of 80 cats to $1,800 based solely on the owner's inability to pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary a statement of account and that considering an owner's ability to pay was not unreasonable or contrary to the statutory scheme.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions by the Animal Care Review Board regarding their sled dog business.

The Board had confirmed orders requiring the applicants to improve living conditions for their dogs, including lengthening tethers and remediating doghouses.

When the applicants failed to comply, animal welfare inspectors removed approximately 230 dogs.

The Board subsequently ordered that most of the dogs not be returned until the applicants complied with the orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, finding the Board's interpretation of the tethering requirements reasonable and concluding that the removal and retention of the dogs were justified due to the applicants' ongoing non-compliance with the minimum standards of care.