ONSCDC 2005

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held she was entitled to receive fifty percent of the basic needs component of income support for her three children.

The tribunal found that the appellant shared primary care and control of the children equally with her ex-husband under a joint custody arrangement.

The Divisional Court found no error in the tribunal's conclusion that the children were dependent children only fifty percent of the time, and dismissed the appeal.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

During the hearing, the Tribunal indicated it would only consider oral evidence and submissions, refusing to deal with matters contained in the documentary record.

The Divisional Court held that this ruling amounted to a judicial error and a denial of natural justice, as it ran the risk of excluding relevant documents.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their land under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The appellants' land, located in a Natural Core Area and accessible only by private road, did not permit the construction of a single dwelling under the applicable zoning by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Board that the definition of a bed and breakfast establishment limits such use to a single dwelling that is the principal residence, which could not be built on the appellants' property.

The appellant sought to amend his appeal to the Divisional Court to include a section 7 Charter challenge against OHIP's refusal to fund his out-of-country liver transplant.

The Charter issue was not raised before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

Applying the prerequisites from R. v. Brown, the court allowed the amendment, finding a sufficient evidentiary record, no tactical delay, and that refusing the amendment could result in a miscarriage of justice, particularly given recent Supreme Court jurisprudence in Chaoulli and legislative changes preventing the Board from hearing constitutional issues.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for unpaid invoices based on personal guarantees.

The appellant argued the respondent improperly split its claims to stay within the Small Claims Court monetary limit and that the guarantees were unenforceable because no prior written demand was made.

The Divisional Court held that the claims were not improperly split as they were based on separate guarantees for different corporate entities.

However, the court found that a formal demand for payment was a condition precedent to bringing an action on a collateral debt (guarantee).

Since no demand was made, the actions were dismissed.

The plaintiffs and an intervenor sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against James W. Curran and his former solicitor, J. Perry Borden, following the dismissal of a motion to set aside a consent order.

The motion to set aside was based on unfounded allegations of fraud and deceit against another solicitor, David A. Seed.

The Divisional Court found that Mr. Curran and Mr. Borden acted as joint venturers in pursuing a meritless claim and making groundless fraud allegations.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs against both Mr. Curran and Mr. Borden jointly and severally, and to Mr. Seed against Mr. Curran.

The applicant husband appealed a spousal support order that required him to pay support for approximately eleven years before it was reviewable.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the duration excessive and an error in principle given the respondent wife's age, education, and employment history.

The court varied the order to a time-limited duration of three years at $700 per month to promote economic self-sufficiency.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought their costs.

The Divisional Court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, allowing the disbursements as claimed but reducing the fees claimed due to duplication of time and excessive preparation time by junior counsel.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court awarded each appellant $15,000 in fees, plus their respective disbursements, payable by the respondents.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from a decision refusing certification of a proposed class proceeding, the respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, agreeing with the motions judge that the case involved a novel question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 347 of the Criminal Code and was a matter of public interest.

The court found that in these circumstances, the appellant should not be penalized with costs despite being unsuccessful.

The appellant appealed an order of a Master dismissing its motion to amend a case management timetable and granting the respondent's cross-motion to dismiss the action for breach of court orders and timetables.

The court considered the appropriate standard of review for a Master's final discretionary decision, noting conflicting jurisprudence between a rehearing standard and a 'clearly wrong' standard.

The court concluded it was unnecessary to finally determine the standard, as the appeal would be dismissed under either standard.

The Master was not clearly wrong, and the court would have exercised its discretion in the same way.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which declined to use its reconsideration powers under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to consolidate 11 bargaining units into two.

The Divisional Court applied the functional and pragmatic approach, determining the standard of review to be patent unreasonableness due to the presence of a strong privative clause and the Board's specialized expertise.

The Court found that the Board's decision to leave the restructuring of bargaining units to the parties once a collective agreement is in place was rational and consistent with long-standing jurisprudence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant was successful in his appeal against the Law Society of Upper Canada and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the time spent and hourly rates were generally acceptable, the total amounts claimed were excessive given the reasonable expectations of the losing party and the historical scale of costs in such appeals.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 for fees at the Divisional Court level and $12,000 for fees at the appeal tribunal level, plus disbursements and GST.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal brought to the Divisional Court from an order of a Master.

The Master's order required the appellant to provide legal descriptions of properties for execution of costs judgments.

The court held that the Master's order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the appeal properly lay to a single judge of the Superior Court.

The appeal was struck from the Divisional Court list, with the appellant given 30 days to transfer it to the Superior Court, conditional on paying $500 in costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal suspending his taxicab driver's licence for thirty days for breaching the municipal code.

The applicant, representing himself, alleged a conspiracy by city employees to harass him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal proceedings were conducted fairly, in accordance with natural justice, and that the findings were supported by evidence.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal an order refusing an interlocutory injunction against a bank regarding credit reporting.

The underlying action had already been settled and dismissed by a Master.

The court dismissed the motion, finding there was no legal framework within which it could be brought given the dismissal of the action.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the respondent bank.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for benefits related to seizure symptoms and denying his reconsideration request.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal carefully weighed conflicting medical opinions and properly applied its test for reconsideration.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which had revoked the respondent's motor vehicle inspection station licence but declined to revoke his mechanic's registration.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's conclusion that the respondent had not violated the Act or regulations was contrary to unchallenged evidence of his twelve convictions under the Act.

The court set aside the tribunal's direction forbidding the revocation of the respondent's registration.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal eviction order and to set aside the automatic stay.

The eviction was based on the tenant and his guests disturbing the peace of other tenants.

The court found the tenant's appeal was weak, raised no serious questions of law, and appeared designed to extend his occupancy rent-free, as rent for October and November remained unpaid.

The court ordered that the stay of the eviction order would be lifted unless the tenant paid the outstanding and upcoming rent into court by specified dates.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to intervene in an ongoing Ontario Human Rights Tribunal hearing regarding the implementation of remedial orders for workplace discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent unusual circumstances.

The court found no such circumstances, noting the applicants' interests were aligned with the Ministry, which was already a party, and emphasizing the chaotic consequences of granting party standing to every non-party whose conduct is raised in evidence.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of the eviction order, noting the tenant was not paying rent and the notice of appeal raised no question of law.

The court ordered the stay lifted and the appeal quashed unless the tenant paid all arrears, current rent, and costs into court by a specified date.