Reilly

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding they breached a home renovation contract with the respondent contractor.

The dispute arose when the appellants refused to pay a full $20,000 progress invoice, citing concerns over incomplete work and the statutory 10% holdback requirement under the Construction Lien Act.

The contractor subsequently stopped work, registered a lien, and terminated the contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in concluding the appellants had run out of money and acted unreasonably.

The Court held that the contractor breached the contract by terminating it precipitously, and ordered a new trial on damages.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent monies due under a defaulted mortgage.

The appellants argued the judgment should not have been granted or should have been stayed because of an ongoing 2011 action alleging misappropriation of funds by a financial advisor who allegedly controlled the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence linking the respondent to the defendants in the 2011 action and no triable issues regarding liability under the mortgage.

The court also denied leave to appeal the motion judge's costs award.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her application for income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The tribunal had found that her impairments, including social phobia and anxiety, were not substantial and she did not meet the definition of a person with a disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal's weighing of the evidence to determine if impairments were substantial did not raise an extricable question of law.

The applicants brought an application for judicial review to challenge the Chief Coroner's decision not to hold an inquest into the death of their son.

At the hearing, the applicants withdrew their request for an inquest and instead sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Coroner's Office to change the manner of death determination from suicide to undetermined.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants only had standing to challenge the decision not to hold an inquest, and that mandamus could not be used to compel the Coroner to exercise discretionary investigative functions or to usurp the role of a coroner's jury.

The applicant, a nurse, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding her complaints against her employer hospital.

The Adjudicator had found the hospital failed to accommodate her disability after October 2009 but dismissed claims of discrimination prior to that date, and awarded monetary compensation rather than reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decisions on the merits and remedy were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in limiting witness testimony to individual rather than systemic claims.

The appellant mother appealed a child protection judgment making her three children Crown wards.

She sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the trial judge erred by admitting and relying heavily on a court-ordered parenting assessment by Dr. Lynch, while disregarding competing medical reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence inadmissible as it was available at trial.

The court held the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in admitting Dr. Lynch's report under section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act, nor in preferring his evidence over the appellant's experts.

Claims of judicial bias and ineffective trial counsel were also dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award dismissing a grievance for severance pay for employees following a plant closure.

The arbitrator ruled that the employees were not eligible for severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 because they received pension benefits that fell within the statutory exemption.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation, including her consideration of the Pension Benefits Act and use of commuted values to compare pension benefits, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a Law Society Hearing Panel order suspending her licence for two and a half months.

She sought a permanent stay of proceedings, arguing her language rights were violated because the Law Society failed to form a francophone Appeal Panel in a timely manner.

The Divisional Court found that while the Law Society failed to demonstrate it took all necessary steps to fulfill its language rights duties, the applicant unilaterally began serving her suspension and did not show that allowing the appeal to proceed would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The application for a permanent stay was dismissed, but a temporary stay was continued until the appeal could be heard.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board pursuant to s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness at the hearing because she may not have understood her role and failed to fully participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Vice Chair accorded the appellant a full opportunity to present evidence and examine witnesses, and that she was assisted at the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent tenants.

The appellant builder appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision awarding the respondent homeowners $11,234 to replace ceramic tiles that did not comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The parties consented to an order setting aside the Tribunal's decision and substituting an award of $4,000 plus costs.

The Divisional Court approved the settlement, noting that the Tribunal erred in effectively ordering specific performance rather than assessing damages based on the floor's useful life or the cost of stiffening it, as required by prior jurisprudence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the definition of disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) was not discriminatory and did not conflict with the Human Rights Code.

The appellant argued that because he met the broader definition of disability under the Code, denying him benefits under the narrower ODSPA definition was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ODSPA is a special program designed to ameliorate the conditions of a disadvantaged group under s. 14(1) of the Code.

The government is not required to extend benefits to every conceivable member of a broad class, and providing benefits to the most disadvantaged is not discriminatory.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding he was not an authorized occupant or tenant of a Toronto Community Housing Corporation unit.

The appellant alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, spousal status, and disability, as well as bias by the Board Member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was fully supported by the evidence, there was no discrimination or bias, and the appeal improperly raised factual issues rather than questions of law.

The applicant, a former First Nations Constable, sought judicial review of the 1998 decisions terminating her employment and her appointment as a police officer.

The application was commenced in 2007 and perfected in 2008, nearly ten years after the impugned decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for delay, finding the applicant's explanations for the delay unsatisfactory and noting that the respondents would suffer actual prejudice due to the passage of time and the unavailability of witnesses.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to stay an Ontario multi-jurisdictional class action in favour of a similar Saskatchewan class action that had been certified earlier.

The defendants argued that the principles of comity and full faith and credit constitutionally required the Ontario court to defer to the Saskatchewan certification order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge was not bound to stay the proceeding, particularly given a prior Ontario carriage decision that found the plaintiffs' counsel in the Saskatchewan action unsuitable to represent a national class.

The court also found that permitting two overlapping multi-jurisdictional class actions to proceed did not constitute an abuse of process.

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.