ONSCDC 2022

The appellants, a pub owner and his business, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board that confirmed a public health order issued against them.

The medical officer of health had ordered the pub to comply with COVID-19 regulations, including mask and vaccine mandates, or close.

The appellants openly defied the order, leading to a restraining order and the changing of the pub's locks.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no merit to the appellants' arguments, including their reliance on the federal Canadian Bill of Rights, and held that the Board did not err in its interpretation and application of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the order was made on consent and required leave to appeal.

The tenant brought a cross-motion for interim possession of her unit pending the appeal, arguing her consent was vitiated by mental health issues and lack of accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the validity of the consent was a serious issue to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the tenant's motion for interim possession subject to conditions, noting she would suffer irreparable harm if the unit was re-rented and her appeal rendered moot.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his eight complaints of discrimination and declared him a vexatious litigant.

The complaints primarily alleged discrimination based on ancestry and place of origin due to poor customer service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's dismissal of the complaints was reasonable as they were frivolous on their face.

The court also held that the Tribunal's process was procedurally fair and its declaration of the applicant as a vexatious litigant was justified given his history of bringing multiple meritless proceedings.

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario requiring them to be cautioned and, in one case, to complete a remediation program.

The applicants argued the decisions were unreasonable because the ICRC failed to address their submissions regarding inordinate delay (over four years) and abuse of process.

One applicant also argued the ICRC failed to consider her mental health disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court granted the applications, quashed the decisions, and remitted the matters back to the ICRC, finding the decisions unreasonable because the ICRC failed to meaningfully grapple with the central issues of delay, abuse of process, and disability.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse for exposing his genitals to a minor, resulting in the revocation of his certificate.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its credibility assessments, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the minor's evidence and the lack of explicit findings on the appellant's credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's reasons, read contextually, adequately explained its rejection of the appellant's denial and correctly applied the law regarding child witness credibility and inconsistencies.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Myers J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party was not required to provide materials, no costs were ordered.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant employer in support of an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The affidavit summarized evidence and proceedings from the arbitration hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the affidavit did not fall within the recognized exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review, as it was an attempt to reframe the evidence before the arbitrator.

The affidavit was struck with leave to file a reconstituted version containing only exhibits and closing submissions.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 16, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that it appeared to be premature, without prejudice to the parties' positions on the final determination of the motion.

No costs were ordered.

The moving party, Telus Communications Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Perell J. dated January 12, 2021 and August 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Faieta J. dated August 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $3,000.

The applicant, a telecommunications contractor, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that refused to change its business classification from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, or alternatively, to reclassify it from Rate Group 704 to Rate Group 983.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the WSIAT's conclusions were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The moving party, a towing company, sought a stay of a decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal confirming the cancellation of its commercial vehicle operator's registration pending an appeal.

The cancellation was based on a poor safety rating and the safety records of related parties involved in an unclosed sale of the business.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the public interest in highway safety outweighed the potential financial harm to the moving party.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his request for a catastrophic impairment designation, income replacement benefits, and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Vice-Chair erred by failing to include a contingency for future surgery in his whole person impairment rating and by ignoring expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that whole person impairment is assessed based on the claimant's condition at the time of the hearing without contingencies for future deterioration or surgery.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to order his return to a rental unit after he was evicted.

The landlord had obtained an eviction order claiming her disabled son needed the unit, but the tenant was not notified of the hearing.

The Board later granted a review but refused to reinstate the tenant based on the landlord's unsworn statement that her son was occupying the unit.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence showing the landlord had actually re-rented the unit to a third party at a higher rent.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by relying on unsworn, false statements.

The Court ordered the tenant immediately reinstated to the unit and remitted the issue of further remedies for the landlord's abuse of process back to the Board.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant had requested a review of the original order, but due to an administrative error, the LTB's review order dismissing the request was not released until months later.

Applying the Enbridge Gas factors, the court found that the tenant demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by waiting for the review order, and the proposed appeal raised a question of law regarding the statutory affidavit requirements.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of M.D. Faieta J. dated September 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,167.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The applicant, a former teacher, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision staying her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously pursued grievances through her union, which involved extensive arbitration hearings where unfavourable medical evidence was presented, before the union withdrew the grievances.

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO Vice-Chair reasonably concluded the applicant was engaged in forum shopping and that allowing the HRTO application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of David L. Edwards J. dated December 15, 2021.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000, to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.