ODC 2023

The appellant/applicant sought to appeal and judicially review interlocutory decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding the striking out and destruction of certain evidence.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory LAT decision.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review regarding the evidentiary rulings due to prematurity, but permitted the judicial review to proceed regarding the orders requiring the destruction of documents.

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

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

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

The Divisional Court reviewed the written submissions of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party 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 ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting a typographical error in the neutral citation of the underlying reasons for decision.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Raikes J. dated July 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Valente J. dated April 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to His Majesty the King in the Right of Ontario in the amount of $1,822.50.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

However, because the motion judge delayed releasing reasons for three and a half months, which justified bringing the motion, the court made no order as to costs.

The court also noted that the best interests of the child would be served by proceeding to trial as quickly as possible.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence for failing to pay a $100,000 costs order and for a history of non-compliance with court orders, including a Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Associate Judge did not reverse the onus, properly considered the lack of evidence regarding the merits of the defence, and correctly identified a pattern of non-compliance rather than making a formal finding of contempt.

The court also rejected the appellant's new argument regarding family law support orders taking precedence, as it was not raised below.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of a grievance arbitrator's decision that granted retroactive statutory holiday benefits to union members for the National Day of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth II.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreements only required a day to be 'proclaimed' by the Governor General to become a paid holiday.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the decision, finding the arbitrator's interpretation unreasonable as it failed to consider the parties' mutual intention and led to the absurd result that any symbolic proclamation would create an additional paid holiday.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed decisions of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons to take no further action regarding his complaints against three dentists.

The applicant alleged procedural fairness violations and that the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board accorded the applicant procedural fairness and that its decisions were reasonable and adequately justified.

The appellant, a not-for-profit corporation, appealed an application judge's order setting terms for its upcoming annual general meeting and board elections following a disrupted meeting and internal governance dispute.

The appellant argued the terms regarding membership eligibility and election procedures were inconsistent with its by-laws.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge had broad discretion under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act to impose terms for fair elections and made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings regarding membership.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions that summarily dismissed his complaints against various City of Toronto officials and departments.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race and place of origin regarding the City's handling of his zoning by-law inquiries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the HRTO's conclusions that the complaints had no reasonable prospect of success and lacked a factual link to Code-protected grounds were reasonable and procedurally fair.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an oppression application involving two closely held companies, one incorporated under the OBCA and the other under the CBCA.

The Divisional Court noted a jurisdictional issue, as appeals under the CBCA lie to the Court of Appeal, while OBCA appeals lie to the Divisional Court.

To avoid divided jurisdiction, the Divisional Court transferred the CBCA appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act and adjourned the OBCA appeal to allow the appellant to seek a transfer of that matter to the Court of Appeal under s. 6 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent landlord brought a motion in writing to dismiss the tenant's appeal due to delay and failure to comply with court directions.

The tenant had previously failed to attend case conferences and missed multiple deadlines to file her appeal materials, despite being given extensions by the court.

The court found that the tenant had been given sufficient opportunity to pursue her appeal but failed to do so.

Applying Rules 3.04(4) and 61.13(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) review decision that ordered his eviction as an unauthorized occupant.

The Divisional Court found that the LTB member breached the duty of procedural fairness by conducting a de novo hearing without first determining the threshold issue of whether the initial decision contained a serious error.

The court also held that the member unfairly denied the appellant the right to cross-examine the landlord regarding alleged renovation contracts, which was a central issue in the member's reasoning.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the LTB for a new review hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant's physical impairments, it erred in law by disregarding and failing to appreciate relevant evidence regarding his long-standing mental health impairments.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned to the Tribunal for a re-hearing before a different member.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent employees within only one division of the company.

The employer argued the Board unreasonably departed from practice by certifying a unit within a division that is not a legal entity, and ignored serious labour relations harm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably applied the principle that a union's proposed unit will be granted unless it causes serious labour relations problems, and reasonably concluded the employer failed to demonstrate such harm.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering her to pay unpaid wages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under section 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.

Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate apparent grounds for relief because she failed to pursue an adequate alternative remedy before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and she failed to show that the delay would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent employee.

The moving party tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including a termination order for failure to comply with a payment schedule for rental arrears.

At the hearing, the court offered the parties an opportunity to resolve the matter given the tenant's significant efforts to pay and the landlord's responsiveness.

The parties reached a resolution where the tenant agreed to pay the outstanding arrears of $6,604.24 by December 31, 2023, along with $2,500 in costs.

The motion for an extension of time was adjourned pending completion of the agreed terms.