ONSCDC 2022

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Carter J. dated August 10, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay the responding party $5,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vella J. dated July 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.

The moving party brought a fresh evidence application and a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the application and the motion, awarding $5,000 in costs to the responding party.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs following the dismissal of an application for judicial review and related motions brought by a physician and her patients.

The applicants argued they were public interest litigants and should pay no costs, or alternatively, reduced costs.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest litigant argument, finding the physician was pursuing private and pecuniary interests in a dispute with her regulator, and the patients lacked standing.

The court ordered the patients to pay $8,000 and the physician to pay $18,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The appellants appealed a decision granting a Certificate of Pending Litigation against their property after they terminated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider a schedule requiring direct deposit, improperly considered their subjective intentions, and erroneously assessed the property's uniqueness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants could not raise the schedule interpretation for the first time on appeal, and that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the equities or the uniqueness of the property.

The applicant First Nation brought an application for judicial review alleging that the Crown's failure to decide applications for Permits to Take Water (PTTW) for existing hydroelectric dams breached the duty to consult and accommodate.

The Crown subsequently amended the Ontario Water Resources Act to exempt the dams from the PTTW requirement, as they were already regulated under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the PTTW applications did not trigger the duty to consult because they sought only to continue historical operations without introducing novel adverse impacts.

Furthermore, the legislative amendments were not unconstitutional as they did not remove the sole trigger for consultation, which remained available under the overlapping regulatory regime.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination application against her professional regulatory college.

The HRTO had dismissed the application because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period, challenged adjudicative functions protected by immunity, and relied on inadmissible investigation documents.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding the college's constitutional status, minor corrections made to the HRTO decision, and the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration request.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding she breached a settlement agreement and ordering her to repay $15,216.00 to the respondent.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bias by the HRTO.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the conclusion that the applicant breached the settlement by advancing resolved claims in a civil action was manifestly reasonable.

The applicant, a member of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, sought judicial review of the Band Council's decisions to refuse her an allocation of tax-exempt unmarked cigarettes for her smoke shop.

The Council based its refusal on criminal convictions related to an unlicensed cannabis dispensary operating on the same property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Council reasonably interpreted its authority under the Tobacco Tax Act regulations to revoke quotas from retailers involved in the illegal sale of drugs.

Although the Council breached its minimal duty of procedural fairness by not giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to the information, the Court declined to quash the decisions because the outcome would not have been different.

The applicant, a nursing student, sought judicial review of a university Senate Appeals Committee decision upholding his failing grade in a clinical practicum.

The applicant was failed after completing only 52 of 419 required hours, shortly after raising concerns about his preceptor's standards of practice.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the evaluation, grade review, and appeal processes were procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

The university failed to follow its own syllabus, denied the applicant an opportunity to respond to credibility issues, and provided inadequate reasons.

The decisions were quashed and the matter remitted to the nursing school.

The applicant property owner sought leave to appeal several decisions of the Assessment Review Board regarding an increase in the assessed value of its property.

The Board had previously increased the property's value based on minutes of settlement filed by the respondents, without the applicant's participation, relying on a rule that deemed non-responsive parties to not oppose settlements.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board erred in disposing of the proceeding without a hearing in the absence of the consent of all statutory parties, finding a potential conflict between the Board's rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Shortly before the hearing, the self-represented respondent requested to respond to the appeal in French and to be addressed in French.

The Divisional Court adjourned the matter to be heard on the merits by a bilingual panel in the interests of justice.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that upheld findings of professional misconduct relating to five separate client matters over a five-year period.

The misconduct included breaching a Small Claims Court production order, failing to serve a client, breaching confidentiality by sending a termination letter containing legal advice to a client's psychiatrist, delaying the deposit of trust funds, misleading the court about an unpaid costs order, and improperly proposing a mutual withdrawal of Law Society complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law in the Appeal Panel's decision, and upheld the costs award against the appellant.

At the outset of a judicial review, the Divisional Court raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Review Committee and the Child and Family Services Review Board under the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court directed that this preliminary issue be determined prior to the hearing on the merits and adjourned the matter for submissions.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed their request to rely on documents obtained in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario proceeding.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the documents were subject to the implied undertaking rule.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration of beneficial ownership of a condominium registered in the name of the deceased.

The applicant claimed he took over financial responsibility for the property prior to closing and that the deceased held it in trust for him.

The court dismissed the application, finding no written evidence of an express trust as required by the Statute of Frauds, and insufficient evidence to establish a purchase money resulting trust because the applicant failed to prove a gratuitous transfer.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim order that denied his request to file additional evidence on a motion that had already been argued and was under reserve.

The responding party requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal was doomed to fail because the underlying motion had not yet been decided, making the appeal premature.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to return possession of a luxury rental home to the tenants.

The landlords had changed the locks and moved back into the home after discovering the tenants were residing in Dubai, arguing the tenancy was no longer residential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction despite parallel Superior Court proceedings, the Board application was not an abuse of process, and the Board correctly interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act.

Crucially, the Court held that the term 'vacant' in s. 31(3) of the Act must be interpreted to exclude situations where a landlord illegally terminates a tenancy and moves into the unit, allowing the Board to restore possession to the wrongfully evicted tenants.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application as out of time, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace investigation did not form part of a 'series of incidents' with earlier alleged discriminatory acts by a dean, and thus the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decisions, finding that the HRTO reasonably concluded the investigation was discrete and separate from the earlier incidents, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.