ONSCDC 2023

The applicants brought an application against the Toronto District School Board regarding an error in the lottery admission process for Elementary Alternative Schools that excluded equity-deserving students.

The TDSB rectified the error, but the applicants did not understand the rectification steps until reviewing the TDSB's responding materials.

The applicants subsequently abandoned their application and sought costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicants $20,000 in costs, finding that the TDSB failed to clearly communicate its solution prior to filing its responding materials, making it reasonable for the applicants to pursue the application until that point.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for termination and compensation for water damage to the rental unit's flooring.

The Board had found that while the tenant's mopping caused the damage, it was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore not negligent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlords' arguments challenged findings of fact and mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant, a community development corporation, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and thus exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle of statutory interpretation.

The court found that the appellant did not provide core municipal services similar to the entities specifically listed in the definition of 'local board'.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipality's decision to invoice him $9,445.44 for fire department response costs after he started an open-air fire on his property.

The applicant had previously pleaded guilty to a provincial offence for violating the burning by-law and was fined $250.

He argued the invoice decision lacked procedural fairness and was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the informal process provided was procedurally fair given the emergency context and statutory scheme, and that the decision to issue the invoice was reasonable and transparent.

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 tenants brought a motion to quash the landlord's appeal of an interim order by the Landlord and Tenant Board that required the landlord to return possession of their residential units following an illegal lockout.

The landlord had refused the tenants access to their units after a minor fire, despite a city order permitting access.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Board's order was interlocutory and therefore not subject to appeal.

The court also held that the landlord's appeal was an abuse of process intended to delay proceedings and subvert the tenants' presumptive right to occupy their homes.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of his judicial review and appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to February 28, 2024, on peremptory terms.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs thrown away and to pay $5,000 into court pending further order.

Failure to make these payments would allow the respondent to move to quash the proceedings.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the Ministry of the Solicitor General to add several categories of documents to the Record of Proceeding in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenges the decision to build a new correctional facility on a site in Kemptville, alleging violations of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants were seeking impermissible documentary discovery and that the requested documents related to core policy decisions regarding site selection, rather than the justiciable legal issue of whether the decision violated the Planning Act.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their 16-year-old child, with parenting time at the child's discretion.

The motion judge had found the father engaged in family violence and harassing behaviour, while dismissing his claims of parental alienation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or application of the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy and ordering payment for damages.

The tenants had failed to attend the initial Board hearing and their request for a review was dismissed.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' appeal was an abuse of process due to their failure to pay rent, delay, and non-compliance with court directions.

The court also found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it did not raise a genuine question of law.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal multiple orders and requested extensions of time.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,000.

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

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were provided by any party, the court made no order as to costs.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision granting the Near North Enviro-Education Centre a property tax exemption under s. 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in interpreting the exemption and applying the 'primary purpose' test by focusing on the institution rather than the actual use of the land, and by ignoring traditional indicia of a seminary of learning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the primary purpose test and the Keewaydin factors, and reasonably concluded that the institution's primary purpose, as reflected by its use of the land for environmental education in a rural community, qualified for the exemption.

The applicant sought judicial review of an oral caution imposed by the College of Pharmacists Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee for overbilling at five pharmacies.

The applicant argued the caution was punitive rather than remedial, given his prior discipline for similar conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable because the current conduct involved significantly more money, more pharmacies, and a different time period, thereby posing a greater risk to the public and demonstrating a need for further remediation.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review and sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

After the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the judicial review application appeared to raise the same issues.

The court found the application was an attempt to relitigate issues already decided and did not raise any factual errors outside the scope of the statutory appeal mechanism.

The application for judicial review was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The self-represented tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order but repeatedly failed to file his appeal materials by court-ordered deadlines.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court rejected the tenant's request for further time to retain counsel, noting the ongoing rent arrears, safety concerns, and unexplained delays.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the automatic stay of the eviction order was vacated.

The applicant, a former employee of the Toronto District School Board, sought an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicant's initial human rights application regarding their termination had been dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay and that there were no apparent grounds for relief, as the underlying issues had already been addressed through the labour grievance process.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant missed the appeal deadline by approximately two weeks due to confusion over hearing dates.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was short and the tenant had an intention to appeal.

However, the court imposed terms requiring the tenant to pay $1,000 per month towards substantial rental arrears pending the appeal.

The court declined to stay the eviction, as it had already been enforced, and declined to prevent the landlord from re-renting the premises.