Panet

The moving party sought an adjournment of its motion for leave to appeal an Assessment Review Board decision, pending the outcome of its concurrent request for a review of the same decision by the Board.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, arguing it would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and give the moving party 'two kicks at the can'.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, holding that parallel proceedings are authorized by statute and that administrative proceedings should be allowed to run their full course before judicial review is pursued.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB) which changed the property tax class of five suite hotels from 'hotel' to 'residential/farm' and 'multi-residential'.

The ARB had concluded that the suite hotels did not meet the definition of a hotel under the Hotel Registration of Guests Act.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision because it failed to make findings on the evidence or provide an analysis of why a suite hotel is not included in the definition.

The court also found the issue to be of sufficient importance as it would impact numerous other suite hotels in Ontario.

The Ontario Divisional Court issued a decision on costs following an appeal.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 plus GST, awarded to the appellant, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and payable by the respondent, Dr. Darren Payne.

No costs were awarded against the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board that required the College's Registration Committee to issue a certificate of registration to the respondent doctor.

The Registration Committee had previously refused the application on the basis that the respondent was ungovernable due to past disciplinary issues in Quebec.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by failing to show deference to the specialized expertise of the Registration Committee regarding the respondent's qualifications and ethical fitness to practice medicine.

The matter was remitted back to the Registration Committee for further consideration in light of new evidence.

The appellant appealed an order varying a permanent custody order.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the variation order, adopting the reasons of the judge who granted leave to appeal.

The court noted that the original custody order was made after a full hearing with full reasons, and the concerns expressed in Sypher v. Sypher did not apply.