ONSCDC 2025

The moving parties sought a stay of a new Ontario government policy restricting international medical graduates from participating in the first iteration of the medical residency matching process (CaRMS) unless they attended high school in Ontario for two years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying application for judicial review.

The court held that the policy was not an exercise of a specific statutory power under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, nor was certiorari available against the Crown in these circumstances.

The inclusion of Charter arguments did not expand the court's statutory jurisdiction.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a judicial review application.

The parties had previously submitted an agreement on costs, which the court had inadvertently overlooked.

Pursuant to the agreement, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $8,000 in costs thrown away, with no costs awarded for the judicial review application itself.

The appellant retained the respondent law firm for an employment dispute.

After the relationship broke down, the firm terminated the retainer and refunded the fees.

The appellant sued the firm and its lawyer in Small Claims Court for breach of contract and professional negligence, seeking $35,000 in damages.

The deputy judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the retainer or professional obligations, and no proven damages.

On appeal, the appellant argued the deputy judge erred in law and denied him procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding errors in the deputy judge's evidentiary rulings or requirement for expert evidence on the standard of care.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellant had consented to proceed with closing submissions.

The moving party sought to review a decision dismissing his motion to extend the time to review a prior order, which had denied an extension of time to seek judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction decision.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the review motion, finding that the delay was excessive and prejudicial, and that the underlying proposed proceedings lacked merit because the LTB has no jurisdiction over rent-geared-to-income subsidy decisions.

The court noted that the moving party's recourse regarding his subsidy arrears lies with the municipality's administrative processes, not the LTB.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The LTB had ordered the tenant's eviction because the landlord entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a purchaser who intended to occupy the unit.

The tenant appealed on four grounds, including misnomer of the landlord, refusal of an adjournment, and the subsequent termination of the purchase agreement due to the tenant's refusal to vacate.

The Divisional Court found that none of the grounds raised a question of law and that the appeal was an abuse of process designed to game the system and frustrate the sale.

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

The appellant pharmacist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of sexually abusing a patient who was also his coworker.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in finding the coworker was a 'patient' under the Patient Criteria Regulation, asserting that dispensing a prescription did not constitute a 'direct interaction'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether a patient relationship existed was a question of mixed fact and law subject to deference.

The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that dispensing a prescription and conducting a clinical verification constituted a direct interaction creating a pharmacist-patient relationship.

The appellants appealed an order terminating their commercial lease, granting possession to the respondent, and declaring the respondent's principal had sole control over the corporate bank account.

The appellants, who were self-represented at the motion, argued the motion judge breached procedural fairness by rejecting their unsworn affidavit and failing to grant an adjournment.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellants had ample time to prepare and were warned about the need for proper materials.

The majority also held the motion judge did not err in granting what amounted to partial summary judgment on an uncontested record, as the appellants failed to bring contradictory sworn evidence to the judge's attention.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge fundamentally misapprehended the record by ignoring sworn cross-examination evidence and acted unfairly toward the self-represented appellants.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a Board decision requiring her to reimburse OHIP over $600,000 for COVID-19 vaccinations administered at mass clinics.

The Board found the applicant failed to meet strict billing requirements for delegated services because the medical students and other physicians who administered the vaccines were not her 'employees'.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's interpretation of the delegation requirements as reasonable.

However, the Court found the Board's refusal to grant relief under the 'extenuating circumstances' provision of the Health Insurance Act was unreasonable, given the context of the global pandemic and the applicant's good faith efforts to facilitate mass vaccinations.

The matter was remitted to the Board to determine the appropriate reimbursement amount.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of J.S. Richard J. dated July 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved costs, fixed at the agreed amount of $7,500, to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Tribunal dismissing a recusal motion based on an alleged apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to file the application but ultimately dismissed the judicial review as premature.

The court reaffirmed that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review of interlocutory administrative decisions should await the completion of the underlying proceeding, and allegations of bias do not automatically bypass this rule.

The applicants sought to challenge Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision requiring security for potential 7-year warranty claims.

The applicants' registration had previously been revoked by a Consent Order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Tarion's concern about the risk of major claims was justified and its discretion was exercised reasonably.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $22,319.98.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union to represent a bargaining unit of operating engineers.

The employer challenged the Board's decision to exclude four working forepersons from the bargaining unit.

The Board had applied the 'majority-of-time' test because the forepersons supervised mixed crews, concluding the employer failed to prove they spent the majority of their time performing or supervising bargaining unit work on the application filing date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's choice and application of the test were reasonable and consistent with its specialized expertise in construction industry labour relations.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

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

The tenant appealed three orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including an eviction order based on the landlord's requirement of the unit for his own residential occupation, and orders denying an extension of time to request a review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary denial of the time extension, no breach of procedural fairness during the hearing, and no error in the Board's application of section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order reducing the respondent's obligation to pay interest on child support arrears.

The principal arrears had been satisfied, but over $10,000 in interest remained.

The motion judge reduced the interest owed to $2,229, payable at $75 per month, citing the respondent's limited income and the decrease in market interest rates over the past 20 years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that varying post-judgment interest was within the judge's discretion under the Family Law Act and Courts of Justice Act, and the decision reflected no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal that ordered the issuance of insurance agent licences to the respondent.

The respondent had previously made false statements on his licence applications regarding his termination from a bank and had conducted unlicensed insurance activity.

The Tribunal found that despite the misconduct, the respondent was suitable to be licensed subject to strict supervision conditions and a $10,000 penalty.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The Tribunal was entitled to substitute its opinion for that of the FSRA and properly weighed the evidence, including the respondent's positive employment record and the context of his misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party, The Corporation of the City of Peterborough, brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

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.