R. D. Reilly

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that rescinded a home renovation contract and dismissed their counterclaim.

The trial judge found the contract for a sunroom addition voidable for non-compliance with the Consumer Protection Act and rescinded it due to unfair practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law and made no palpable and overriding error of fact regarding the contract or the dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim for unjust enrichment.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment granting Crown wardship of her 8-year-old child without access, with a view to adoption.

The child had been in the temporary care of the respondent society due to the mother's psychiatric problems and the child's own needs.

Expert psychiatric evidence at trial strongly recommended against continued access, emphasizing the child's need for stability and permanency through adoption.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the trial judge's decision to terminate access.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating their tenancy and ordering them to pay repair costs.

The appellants argued the Tribunal erred in law by making findings unsupported by evidence and failing to exercise discretion under section 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the conclusion that the tenants caused damage beyond normal wear and tear.

The Court also held the Tribunal member properly considered section 84 and reasonably concluded it would be unfair to the landlord to continue the tenancy.

The Director appealed an order of the Environmental Review Tribunal awarding costs to the respondents after the Director revoked the underlying environmental orders.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The Environmental Protection Act does not confer costs jurisdiction, and the Tribunal could not rely on section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because it had not enacted rules regarding costs that complied with the requirements of section 17.1(2)(b).

The defendant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sued the provincial government in negligence after the deceased contracted West Nile Virus, alleging the government failed to reasonably implement its prevention plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail, as the relevant public health legislation conferred sufficient powers on the government to potentially ground a private law duty of care at the operational level.

The appeal was dismissed.