Divisional Court

The moving party, a tenant in a rent-geared-to-income unit, sought an extension of time to bring applications for judicial review of a housing provider's decision revoking his subsidy and a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his application as abandoned.

The housing provider had revoked the subsidy due to the tenant's failure to provide required income verification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that while the delay was short and caused no prejudice, the proposed applications for judicial review lacked any merit.

Following the dismissal of its application, the applicant sought to make further submissions regarding recent amendments to the definition of 'written notice of lien' under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court declined the request, finding that the amendments, which came into effect after the applicant's payment obligations arose, did not apply retrospectively.

The court also declined to provide general guidance on the new amendments, noting that such guidance should be reserved for cases where the issue is material to the result.

The appellant, an independent health facility operator, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister of Health's order to repay nearly $300,000 in facility fees for limited pelvic ultrasounds.

The Board found the appellant improperly billed for these ultrasounds because they were not requested by a referring physician or radiologist and their medical necessity was not adequately documented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly determined its hearing was de novo, the process was procedurally fair, and the appellant failed to meet the statutory documentation requirements for reimbursement.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Toronto Licensing Tribunal decisions that first suspended and later revoked his vehicle-for-hire licence due to uncivil behaviour toward municipal staff.

The applicant argued the tribunal ignored evidence of provocation and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal reasonably weighed the evidence, considered the context, and appropriately prioritized the public interest after the applicant continued his behaviour despite completing anger management counselling.

The appellant, a 21-year member of a housing co-operative, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order terminating his occupancy due to arrears and extreme hoarding.

The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal on medical grounds, which the Divisional Court denied due to a pattern of delay and lack of supporting medical evidence.

On the merits, the court found the LTB made no errors of law, as it had properly weighed the evidence regarding the unit's condition, the arrears, and the appellant's medical and financial circumstances.

The LTB had also appropriately exercised its discretion under s. 94.12 of the Residential Tenancies Act to postpone the eviction date.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The landlord appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding she unlawfully charged the tenants a commission contrary to s. 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The landlord argued the LTB erred by preferring the tenant's live evidence over an unsworn written statement, providing inadequate reasons, and finding the real estate agent acted on her behalf.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB's weighing of evidence and factual findings raised no questions of law, and its reasons were adequate.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly analyze the distinct factual underpinnings and time periods of the two proceedings.

The application for judicial review was granted, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying statutory accident benefits.

The motion was brought nearly five months after the deadline.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time, the court found that while the moving party intended to appeal and there was no prejudice to the respondent, the delay was poorly explained and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The proposed appeal improperly sought to challenge findings of fact, whereas appeals from the Tribunal are restricted to questions of law.

The motion was dismissed.

The 92-year-old appellant suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits to modify her daughter's home, where she intended to move to receive 24-hour care.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, holding that the appellant first had to prove her existing condominium could not be modified.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by imposing an unlegislated threshold and adopting an unduly narrow interpretation of 'existing home' under section 16 of the SABS.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurer was ordered to pay the claimed benefits immediately.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay the respondent $25,000 for the unreturned balance of a deposit from a rescinded business purchase agreement.

The trial judge pierced the corporate veil, finding the appellant companies acted as one entity.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the trial judge erred in piercing the corporate veil and failing to enforce a residential lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence and the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The appellant was injured when the public transit bus she was riding stopped abruptly, throwing her forward.

She sought statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the Licence Appeal Tribunal under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act because the bus did not collide with another vehicle or object.

On appeal, the appellant argued she constituted 'any other object' under the statute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plain wording and context of the provision require the object to be outside the vehicle, and a bus does not collide with a person inside it.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for alleged sexual harassment and age discrimination by an assistant manager at a Goodlife gym.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably interpreted the test for sexual harassment, made unreasonable evidentiary findings, and erred in finding Goodlife met its duty to investigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's credibility assessments, factual findings, and conclusions regarding the duty to investigate were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his application for a rent refund.

The tenant argued that a $350 monthly payment towards a condominium special assessment was a voluntary contribution, not rent, and that the rent increase was unlawful due to lack of proper notice.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the payment fell within the broad definition of rent under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Because the tenant had paid the increased amount for more than 12 consecutive months before filing the application, the increase was deemed lawful under sections 135.1 and 136(1) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that a wheel loader was an 'automobile' for the purposes of statutory accident benefits.

At the LAT hearing, both parties conceded that the wheel loader was not an automobile in ordinary parlance, focusing their arguments on the third part of the Adams test.

However, the LAT decided the case based on the first part of the test without seeking further submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LAT breached procedural fairness by rejecting the parties' concession without giving them an opportunity to make full submissions on the issue.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a Postgraduate Tribunal decision that dismissed her appeal of an Academic Review Board order requiring her to withdraw from the program.

She alleged procedural unfairness based on a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one panel member and inadequate disclosure of redacted patient records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, agreeing with the Tribunal that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and that sufficient disclosure had been provided.

The moving party father sought an urgent stay of an interim order granting the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility regarding their eight-year-old child's medical treatment, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The mother wished to follow a pediatric endocrinologist's advice to commence treatment for a medical condition, while the father opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the father failed to establish a serious issue to be determined on the motion for leave to appeal, as there were no conflicting decisions on the legal principles and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured expeditious decision-making in the child's best interests.

The appellant landlord appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that dismissed her applications and found she had harassed the respondent tenant and breached the Residential Tenancies Act.

The LTB had ordered the landlord to pay the tenant compensation, cease harassing behaviour, and pay a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the LTB's factual findings regarding the landlord's retaliatory conduct were well supported by the record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) regarding his complaint against two police officers.

The applicant alleged the Director's decision was procedurally unfair due to a lack of disclosure and unreasonable due to factual inaccuracies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant received adequate procedural fairness as he was provided with the information the Director relied upon.

The court also held that the Director's decision was reasonable, noting that the applicant's arguments amounted to minor missteps that did not undermine the substance of the decision.

The respondent City of Toronto brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the applicant's 1,127-page application record in a judicial review of a zoning bylaw amendment for supportive housing.

The applicant sought to introduce affidavit evidence regarding other City projects to demonstrate a pattern of closed-mindedness and lack of consultation.

The court partially granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, argumentative, inflammatory, or related to post-decision events, while permitting some evidence regarding the applicant's claims of bias and an improperly restricted record to remain for the panel's consideration.

The applicant sought a stay of a zoning bylaw amendment that permitted a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Ottawa, pending its application for judicial review.

The respondents opposed the stay and moved to strike portions of the application and the applicant's affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The court granted the motion to strike in part, striking the challenge to the Municipal Support Resolution as statute-barred, striking portions of the application that impermissibly sought reasonableness review of the bylaw, and striking several affidavits and portions of affidavits that contained impermissible opinion evidence from unqualified laypersons.