Robbie D. Gordon

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an Adjudicator with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, which found that the Toronto Police Service had conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to his access request.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of gang stalking and mind control, and argued that the police failed to produce records documenting these activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the Adjudicator's decision, no breach of procedural fairness, and declining to consider Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.

The applicant, a foreign-trained medical doctor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his application for lack of standing.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to allege his own rights were infringed regarding the allocation of residency positions.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable because the applicant had included evidence in his application showing he had applied for and been denied a residency position.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO.

The appellant rental car company appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent insurer was the first loss insurer for a motor vehicle accident involving a rental car.

The driver of the rental car was a listed driver, but not a named insured, under her father's standard Ontario Automobile Policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under the clear terms of the policy, rental vehicle coverage is only available to the named insured or their spouse.

Because coverage was not available to the listed driver, the priority provisions of s. 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act were not triggered, and the rental company's insurer was liable.

The appellant tenant requested an adjournment of her appeal to allow additional time to perfect it.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to July 16, 2018, on strict conditions.

These conditions included the ongoing payment of rent, providing evidence of an application to an assisted living facility, and payment of $750 in costs to the respondent landlord.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her youngest child a Crown ward without access.

The child had been apprehended at birth.

A parenting capacity assessment concluded there was a serious risk of neglectful parenting due to the mother's severe intellectual limitations and personality traits, despite her commitment and efforts to improve.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's findings that the child was in need of protection, that supervision was unworkable, and that access would not be meaningful or beneficial to the child.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent purchased a cottage from the appellants and subsequently discovered fire damage in the roof structure that was not identified during a home inspection.

The respondent successfully sued in Small Claims Court for $25,000 on the basis of a latent defect.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding of liability, agreeing the defect was latent and rendered the property uninhabitable.

However, the court found the trial judge erred in assessing damages by including costs for betterment and unrelated repairs.

The damages award was reduced to $11,500.

The appellants appealed their convictions for assaulting and resisting peace officers.

The charges arose from an altercation with police who had entered the property to investigate a noise complaint.

The appellants argued the police were unlawfully on the property, breached their section 8 Charter rights, and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the police had an implied licence to enter the property, the appellants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred nearly 18 years prior.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate, it was not inexcusable, as the defendants had consented to or requested many of the adjournments, and the plaintiff had been actively participating in the litigation process.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court set a timetable to bring the matter to trial.

The appellants appealed interlocutory orders granting defamation and harassment injunctions, a publication ban, and substantial costs against them.

The dispute arose after the appellants created websites and online petitions expressing concern about their adult son's relationship with an older man, including hyperlinks to articles about online exploitation.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge applied the wrong test for defamation injunctions and that the websites alone were not clearly defamatory.

However, the court held that hyperlinking to the articles effectively identified the respondents, constituting publication.

The defamation injunction was narrowed to only require removal of the hyperlinks.

The harassment injunction and publication ban were set aside for lacking legal and evidentiary foundation.

The appeal was granted in part, with costs awarded to the appellants.

Canada Post Corporation applied for judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a temporary employee dismissed for failing to demonstrate reasonable availability.

The arbitrator found the dismissal unjustified, introducing a requirement for corporate prejudice.

The Divisional Court held that while the arbitrator failed to follow established arbitral jurisprudence and impermissibly amended the collective agreement by requiring corporate prejudice, his ultimate conclusion that the dismissal was unreasonable remained defensible on the facts.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, with one judge dissenting.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction after her sons were arrested in the unit for possessing an illegal handgun and drugs.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness when the Board proceeded with the hearing in her absence after she left to seek medical attention for a toothache without waiting for a ruling on her adjournment request.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice in proceeding in her absence and no error in the Board's conclusion that possessing an illegal handgun impaired the safety and reasonable enjoyment of other tenants.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to strike a jury notice and granting the respondent's motion for late delivery of a jury notice in a consolidated action involving a denied life insurance claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly considered the test for late jury notices, including the circumstances of delay and lack of prejudice.

The Court also upheld the finding that the respondent's claim, while framed as seeking a declaration of entitlement to a $400,000 death benefit, was in pith and substance a claim for monetary damages, and therefore a jury notice was permissible.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination complaint against the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The HRTO had dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of her complaint regarding social assistance eligibility and shelter allowance had already been appropriately dealt with by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decision was reasonable and that the applicant's benefits were assessed based on her own application and a reasonable interpretation of the regulations, not discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenant argued the landlord was estopped from charging market rent due to a letter suggesting she pay a lower rent-geared-to-income amount while they attempted to convert her unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the estoppel issue was not raised before the Board, the letter was not a clear and unequivocal promise, and the Board reasonably interpreted its home statute regarding jurisdiction over rent subsidies and service of notices.

The parties separated after 16 years of marriage due to the respondent's posttraumatic stress disorder.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family properties.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, imputed the respondent's income to account for non-taxable benefits, and ordered time-limited spousal support.

The court also ordered the respondent to satisfy the equalization payment via a lump sum transfer from his pension, declining the applicant's request to transfer the matrimonial home as the court lacked authority to redistribute property for that purpose.

The appellant physician appealed an eight-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for professional misconduct.

The appellant had borrowed substantial sums of money from two patients to fund a failed investment and subsequently made a consumer proposal, resulting in significant financial losses for the patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee reasonably considered specific and general deterrence, the appellant's lack of remorse, and the vulnerability of the patients due to shared ethnicity and language.

The moving defendants, subtenants of a medical facility, sought summary judgment to dismiss claims by the landlord for breach of contract and unlawful act conspiracy after they vacated the premises.

The landlord alleged the subtenants breached continuous operation covenants and conspired to harm the landlord by moving to new premises.

The court granted the landlord's motion to amend its claim to add two corporate subtenants.

However, the court found no privity of contract between the landlord and subtenants, and no applicable exception to the privity doctrine.

Furthermore, the court determined there was no evidence of unlawful conduct or intent directed towards the landlord to support the conspiracy claim.

Consequently, the subtenants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the landlord's claims against them were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding alleged defects in the design of an HVAC system, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discovered until he received an expert report, as the defendants had assured him the design was not flawed.

The court found that the plaintiff knew of the damage and believed the defendants were responsible well before the two-year limitation period expired, as evidenced by his emails and refusal to sign a release.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's awards concerning the use of condominium units and associated costs.

The arbitrator had found the appellant in breach of a single-family use restriction but granted a nine-month grace period for compliance, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant sought to vary the compliance period and the costs award.

The court granted an extension of time for filing the appeal and leave to appeal on questions of law.

However, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings regarding the condominium corporation's duty to enforce, the non-waiver provision, and the commercially reasonable time for compliance.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal which found that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator preferred the objective medical evidence of the respondent's experts over the self-reported evidence of the appellant's treating physicians, noting credibility issues with the appellant.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator properly applied the law and that the decision was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.