ONSCDC 2023

The applicant sought judicial review of a 9-month membership suspension imposed by a not-for-profit pickleball organization.

The respondent raised a preliminary jurisdictional challenge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the organization was not exercising a statutory power under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court noted that the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act regulates internal affairs but does not render them subject to judicial review.

Furthermore, the private dispute did not have a sufficient public dimension to warrant judicial review.

The appellant, a municipal councillor and later mayor, appealed a decision finding he contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by attempting to influence the location of a municipal project near his commercial property.

The application judge ordered his removal from office and a two-year disqualification.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction, the finding of a pecuniary interest, the admission of expert evidence, the penalty, and the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable errors in the application judge's objective assessment of the conflict, her reliance on the expert valuation report, or her discretionary decisions on penalty and costs.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision and attended a case conference regarding the continuation of a stay pending appeal.

The tenant had accumulated $27,586 in rent arrears and provided no evidence to dispute the amount or explain the non-payment.

The court ordered the tenant to pay $9,600 towards arrears plus ongoing rent as a condition of continuing the stay, and set a schedule for the perfection of the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her motion to set aside an eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued she was denied procedural fairness and that the Board erred in finding she had not paid the required amount to void the order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board afforded procedural fairness and made no errors of law, as the amount paid was a question of fact and the tenant repeatedly confirmed the amount during the hearing.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of a hearing officer's interlocutory decision refusing to order the production of an unredacted copy of her duty book during a disciplinary proceeding.

The respondent moved to quash the application for prematurity.

The Divisional Court quashed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interrupting the ongoing administrative process to review a discrete disclosure ruling.

The court also held that the hearing officer should not be named as a party to the proceedings to preserve his objectivity.

The appellants, two school boards and several employees, appealed a motion judge's refusal to strike the respondent's statement of claim.

The respondent, a mother involved in a bitter custody dispute, sued the school boards for misfeasance of public office, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and breach of her section 7 Charter rights, alleging they failed to provide records, notify her of incidents, and impeded access to her son.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that school employees do not owe a duty of care to parents that conflicts with their duties to students, and the conduct alleged did not meet the high thresholds for the intentional torts or Charter breaches pleaded.

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 Petersen J. dated July 11, 2023.

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

The defendants 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 and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perfetto J. dated July 18, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs for or against any party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Leiper J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The responding parties requested costs but failed to provide a Costs Outline as required, resulting in no costs being awarded.

The unrepresented appellant, through their litigation guardian, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Chalmers J. dated November 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered for or against any party.

Following the issuance of its decision on appeal, the court was informed that the respondent's counsel had fallen ill and could not meet the deadline to serve and file an amended pleading.

The appellants consented to an extension and requested that the requirement for the respondent's approval of the draft order be dispensed with so they could seek leave to appeal.

The court granted the extension and dispensed with the approval requirement.

The University of Toronto appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding a student $710.27 in general damages and $1,000 in punitive damages over a disputed tuition refund.

The student had dropped a full-year course after the refund deadline but argued the policy was ambiguous.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact and law.

The court held the university's calendar and refund policy clearly stated the financial penalties for late withdrawal, and the university's conduct did not meet the high threshold for punitive damages.

The original claim was dismissed.

The appellant dentist appealed a discipline committee decision finding he engaged in sexual abuse of a patient and committed professional misconduct by co-signing a mortgage with another patient.

The committee revoked his certificate of registration and ordered him to pay costs and therapy expenses.

On appeal, the appellant argued the patient was his spouse under the statutory exception, relying on an alleged foreign divorce and religious marriage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the committee's finding that the sexual relationship commenced before the alleged marriage, rendering the spousal exception inapplicable.

The mandatory penalty of revocation and the costs awards were also upheld.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 25, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as no costs outline was filed.

The self-represented applicants brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a reconsideration decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding accident benefits.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicants had a history of vexatious litigation and the appeal was devoid of merit.

The court granted the extension, finding the 12-day delay was not lengthy, the applicants had a bona fide intention to appeal, and the proposed ground of reasonable apprehension of bias was not utterly devoid of merit.

The extension was granted subject to strict terms, including case management, to address the respondent's concerns about the applicants' litigation conduct.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a boundary fence dispute, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the matter should have been addressed under the Line Fences Act.

The Divisional Court noted that the City of Toronto had opted out of the Line Fences Act, meaning the statutory cost apportionment scheme no longer applied.

Because the trial judge appeared to rely on the principles of the Line Fences Act without identifying an alternative legal cause of action, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and remitted the matter for a new trial with directions to amend the pleadings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed one of her two allegations of breach of a settlement agreement for being untimely.

The HRTO found that the two alleged breaches did not constitute a 'series of contraventions' under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, meaning the first breach was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with its established jurisprudence.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bias, finding no evidentiary basis for them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a licensed paralegal, brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration that he is authorized to process and file immigration applications under the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) maintained that By-Law 4 restricts paralegals to providing legal services only in connection with proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LSO's interpretation of By-Law 4 was correct, that the by-law does not conflict with the IRPA under the federal paramountcy doctrine, and that the restriction does not violate section 7 of the Charter.