ONSCDC 2021

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Pinto J. dated September 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The underlying dispute regarding a discriminatory driver's licensing policy had been resolved in the applicant's favour by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and the policy was subsequently amended.

However, the court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding that the underlying legal issue—whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a standalone Charter claim—is an important issue that may be evasive of appellate review.

The mootness issue was left to be decided by the full panel hearing the application on the merits.

The self-represented appellant, a commercial tenant, appealed a trial judge's assessment of damages following a wrongful eviction that destroyed his dry-cleaning business.

The trial judge had awarded $16,000, comprising lost income, loss of equipment, and aggravated damages.

The appellant argued the award was too low, while the respondent landlord cross-appealed, arguing the awards were unjustified.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the principles of contract damages and that the awards were supported by the limited evidence presented at trial.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside the noting in default of the respondent and permanently staying a third party claim brought under the Construction Act.

The appellant had commenced the third party claim without seeking the required leave and sought to convert it to an ordinary civil proceeding more than five years after the limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a motion for leave to convert a construction lien third party claim must be brought before the expiry of the limitation period, and the motion judge made no error in refusing to grant leave nunc pro tunc.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory order removing her solicitor of record and denying her father, a former lawyer, leave to represent her.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the proper route was a motion for leave to appeal.

After reviewing the applicant's response, the court dismissed the application and imposed a requirement that the applicant obtain permission or be represented by a lawyer before bringing further proceedings in the court.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's interpretation of a Supreme Court of Canada costs order.

The motion judge had found the plaintiff was only required to repay $12,180, while the defendants argued the order required repayment of $200,000.

Rather than deciding the appeal, the Divisional Court ordered the parties to jointly apply to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification of its own order, finding this to be the most efficient and proportionate method of resolving the ambiguity.

The applicant, an Indigenous child welfare agency, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision amending the designations of child welfare agencies in the Thunder Bay area.

The decision expanded the jurisdiction of another Indigenous agency to provide services to its affiliated families residing in Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was a policy decision that met the requirements of procedural fairness and was reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The appellant client appealed a motion judge's assessment of her former solicitor's account.

The motion judge had found the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction due to a contingency fee agreement, but relied on the officer's evidentiary record to conduct his own quantum meruit assessment, reducing the fees to $45,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on the assessment officer's report or his application of the Cohen factors.

The Court also lifted a sealing order that had been improperly requested.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of R.F. Macleod J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,229.03.

The Integrity Commissioner appealed a decision imposing a reprimand on a city councillor who breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council meeting regarding a debt owed to a non-profit corporation of which he was a director.

The Commissioner argued the only appropriate penalty was removal from office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that recent amendments to the Act broadened judicial discretion regarding penalties, and the application judge made no error in principle in imposing a reprimand given the mitigating factors.

The appellant, an environmental clean-up worker, suffered impairments from toxic exposure while cleaning up a chemical spill caused by a fatal collision between two trucks.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the SABS.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that while the use of the vac-truck met the purpose test, it did not meet the causation test as the toxic substances, not the vehicle, directly caused the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT made no errors of law in its articulation or application of the purpose and modified causation tests.

The applicants sought judicial review of Landlord and Tenant Board decisions ordering their eviction and payment of rent arrears.

The court had previously quashed the applicants' appeal of the same decisions.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequently dismissed the application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding it to be an improper collateral attack on the court's prior final decision.

The appellant obtained leave to appeal a temporary support order.

However, a trial date was subsequently scheduled to commence shortly.

The Divisional Court stayed the appeal pending the trial, noting that interlocutory appeals in family law are generally discouraged, the temporary order would not bind the trial judge, and proceeding with the appeal would disrupt the trial process and waste judicial resources.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 21, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant insurer appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment.

The insurer had been served with the statement of claim, but due to inadvertence by an employee, it was not forwarded to the appropriate claims adjuster.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge erred in principle by applying too stringent an interpretation of 'reasonable explanation' and failing to apply the test flexibly.

The default judgment was set aside to allow the matter to be determined on its merits.

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

The applicant had waited 32 months after the union withdrew his grievances before filing the complaint, having pursued parallel proceedings at the Human Rights Tribunal and Superior Court in the interim.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the delay was excessive, the explanation insufficient, and the prejudice to the union significant.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order granting summary judgment to the respondent bank for a credit card debt.

The appellant argued that the bank's failure to provide a signed account agreement was fatal to its claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error, as the appellant had received and not disputed monthly credit card statements setting out the debts and interest rates over many years.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, triggering an automatic stay.

At a case management conference, the court considered whether to impose terms on the stay.

The tenant claimed he owed no rent because he was being held in the premises by CSIS.

Finding this claim highly unlikely and indicative of gaming the system, the court ordered the tenant to pay $23,624.72 in arrears and $2,500 in ongoing monthly rent to maintain the stay of eviction.

The self-represented applicant moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's orders adding the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal as a party to his judicial review application and dismissing the application for extreme delay.

The applicant argued that s. 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Divisional Court's test for delay violated the Charter and the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no constitutional violations, no error in adding the Tribunal as a party, and no error in dismissing the application due to an extraordinary and unexplained 12-year delay.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's interpretation of schedules to two expired collective agreements.

Prior to the hearing, the parties ratified new collective agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the matter moot as there was no longer a live controversy between the parties.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, emphasizing that it does not provide advisory opinions and that the applicant had an obligation to bargain scheduling issues rather than await a court decision on expired agreements.