ONSCDC 2024

The moving parties requested a case conference for an order staying portions of an October 16, 2024 order that required the production of documents over which solicitor-client privilege was asserted.

The court granted the stay pending the resolution of the motion for leave to appeal and set a timetable for the delivery of motion materials.

The moving parties, Toufik Benhamiche and Kahina Bensaadi, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perfetto J. dated February 21, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000, all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 15, 2024.

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 sought judicial review of decisions by the Animal Care Review Board confirming the removal of animals from his zoo and ordering him to pay $105,059.35 in care costs.

The applicant argued the Board's decisions were unreasonable due to an absence of evidence, misapprehension of evidence, and failure to consider his expert evidence and legal submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions reasonable and denying the applicant's motion to admit fresh evidence.

The tenant appealed eviction orders from the Landlord and Tenant Board and sought a fourth extension of time to perfect his appeals.

The landlords brought a cross-motion to dismiss the appeals for delay and to lift the stay of eviction.

The court found that the tenant had no intention of perfecting his appeals, the delay was unreasonable, and his explanations for the delay were no longer compelling.

Furthermore, the court noted that the appeals lacked merit as they primarily raised questions of fact rather than law.

The court dismissed the tenant's request for an extension and granted the landlords' motion, dismissing the appeals for delay and lifting the stay of eviction effective June 28, 2024.

The moving parties brought a motion to vary an order dated August 25, 2023, and sought costs on a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to vary the order and determined that no costs should be awarded on the motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant sought an order to stay the appeal pending the outcome of parallel proceedings before the Court of Appeal.

The self-represented respondent consented to the relief via email.

The court accepted the email consent and granted the stay on the terms sought.

The self-represented appellant sought to appeal an endorsement of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that denied his motion to reinstate previous appeals and set aside a vexatious litigant order.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

The Court found that the endorsement was not a final order giving rise to a statutory right of appeal under section 49.38 of the Law Society Act.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the proposed appeal as an abuse of process.

Four physiotherapists sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to issue them verbal cautions.

The cautions related to the inaccurate billing practices of their co-owned multidisciplinary clinic, which systematically waived insurance co-payments but billed the insurer for the full amounts.

The applicants argued the College lacked jurisdiction to regulate clinic business practices and that the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the College had jurisdiction to hold members accountable for systemic billing issues in their clinics and that the decisions and cautions were reasonable.

The moving party brought two motions: one to appoint a litigation guardian and another for an extension of time to appeal a trial decision.

The court granted the motion to appoint the moving party's common law spouse as litigation guardian, finding the requirements of Rule 7 were met.

The court also granted the extension of time to appeal on terms, noting the delay was largely explained by the self-represented moving party mistakenly filing the appeal in the Court of Appeal instead of the Divisional Court, and finding no real prejudice to the responding party.

A child rights organization brought a motion for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying complaint alleged a doctor improperly conducted a genital examination on an Indigenous child without appropriate consent.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding the organization would provide a useful and different perspective on the rights of the child and their intersecting vulnerabilities, and that the case raised issues of public importance beyond a private dispute.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director, which confirmed the police chief's finding that the investigating officers did not neglect their duty.

The applicant alleged the officers failed to conduct a thorough investigation by not obtaining relevant subway surveillance video of an assault.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Director's decision reasonable because the officers had promptly requested the video but were inadvertently misled by the transit authority regarding its existence and the correct subway car number.

The court also found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness by the Director.

The Law Society of Ontario sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal, which had set aside a Hearing Division decision denying the respondent's application for licensing.

The respondent, a former lawyer whose licence was revoked following misappropriation and criminal fraud convictions, applied for reinstatement but the Hearing Division found he failed to prove good character.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply the appellate standard of review, impermissibly reweighed evidence, and mischaracterized the Hearing Division's findings.

The Hearing Division's decision denying the licence was restored.

The defendant, Wrestling Canada Lutte, appealed a motion judge's decision declining to strike a breach of contract claim brought by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant breached a dispute resolution clause by failing to engage in dispute resolution before terminating their independent contractor agreement without cause.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that a valid without-cause termination does not constitute a 'dispute' under the contract.

Because the contract was validly terminated and no dispute had been referred to arbitration prior to termination, the dispute resolution clause was not triggered.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that allowed an injured Ontario worker to sue an out-of-province employee and his Schedule 1 employer in Ontario.

The tribunal had held that the statutory bar to civil actions under s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 did not apply because the out-of-province employee had no connection to Ontario, relying on the constitutional doctrine of extra-territoriality.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the tribunal misapplied the constitutional doctrine, as the legislation regulates the property and civil rights of the injured Ontario worker, not the out-of-province defendant.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to interpret s. 28 without the extra-territoriality considerations.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his discrimination application at a summary hearing.

The HRTO had found that most of his allegations were out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under the Human Rights Code, and that he had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the HRTO misapplied the case law regarding a series of incidents and denied the applicant procedural fairness by restricting his submissions on available evidence.

The matter was remitted to the HRTO for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying certain statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness by unilaterally separating her hearing from her mother's, drastically reducing the scheduled hearing time without adequate notice, and refusing to allow cross-examination of the respondent's occupational therapist whose report had been materially altered by an assessment company.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of racial discrimination against a retail store employee, as well as the Tribunal's subsequent reconsideration decision.

The applicant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair because the Tribunal limited his cross-examination on will-say statements and restricted evidence regarding the adequacy of the store's internal investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings and narrowing of the issues were procedurally fair.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's merits decision was reasonable, as it was transparent, intelligible, and justified by the evidentiary record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision declaring her a vexatious litigant after she filed over 160 applications.

The applicant argued the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and the decision was unreasonable, seeking to adduce a surreptitious recording of the hearing as new evidence.

The Divisional Court admitted the recording but dismissed the application, finding that the HRTO provided a fair hearing and reasonably concluded the applicant's conduct was vexatious.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated September 25, 2023.

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