Robert J. Smith

The applicant sought an order of mandamus compelling the City of Toronto to issue notices of rent reduction to tenants of 29 residential complexes, following a reduction in municipal property taxes.

The City admitted it failed to provide the notices within the prescribed time under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mandamus, finding that issuing the notices years late could mislead tenants, as the one-year limitation period to claim a rent reduction had already expired.

The court also declined to grant a declaration of the City's statutory breach, as it would have no practical effect, but allowed a motion to add a tenant as a party.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of two interest arbitration awards that ordered retroactive wage increases for employees who were no longer actively employed.

The hospital argued that retroactivity was not a matter in dispute between the parties and that the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction and denied procedural fairness by deciding the issue without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that the board's decision was unreasonable because it failed to explain why it was necessary to deal with retroactivity when the parties had agreed it was not in dispute.

The Court also found a denial of procedural fairness and set aside the portion of the awards dealing with retroactivity.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed its application for an above-guideline rent increase related to lobby renovations.

The Adjudicator had dismissed the claim due to missing schedules in the contract and concerns about a non-arms-length relationship between the landlord's agent and the contractor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Adjudicator erred in law by relying on an irrelevant corporate relationship and breached procedural fairness by failing to consider the landlord's requests to file the missing documents.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator for rehearing.

The applicant children's aid society sought judicial review of a tribunal decision that overturned the society's removal of a child from prospective adoptive parents.

The society had removed the child after medical evidence indicated that the child's younger sibling suffered non-accidental trauma consistent with shaken baby syndrome while in the sole care of the prospective adoptive parents.

The court found the tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to determine whether the prospective adoptive parents had caused the severe injuries to the sibling, which was highly relevant to assessing the risk of harm to the child.

The tribunal's decision was quashed.

Following a successful judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, the applicant employer sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent union argued for a lower amount in line with typical labour relations cases, while the Board argued no costs should be awarded against it.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $4,000 payable by the union, noting that labour relations cases in the court are generally low-cost.

No costs were awarded against the Board as it only addressed the standard of review.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to refer two students' complaints of racial discrimination to the Human Rights Tribunal.

The applicants argued that the Commission breached procedural fairness by relying on an undisclosed expert report and that the investigator's summary of the report created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's disclosure met the duty of fairness for its gatekeeping function and that the decision was not patently unreasonable or tainted by bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying accidental death and 'killed in the line of duty' benefits to the estate of a firefighter who died of renal cancer caused by occupational exposure to toxic substances.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's application of common law insurance principles to conclude the death was not accidental was incorrect and rendered the decision patently unreasonable.

The Court found that the firefighter's death from an occupational illness was unexpected and not caused solely by natural causes, thus qualifying as an accidental death and occurring in the line of duty.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the employer was ordered to pay the benefits.

The appellants appealed a Deputy Judge's decision finding them liable for negligent misrepresentation in the sale of a mobile home.

The vendors had stated there was a 'new roof in 2002,' but only part of the roof had been replaced.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of palpable and overriding error to the Deputy Judge's findings of mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the finding that a special relationship existed, the statement was inaccurate, and the purchaser relied on it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a basement renovation dispute, alleging that the trial judge's comments and interventions created a reasonable apprehension of bias and that he failed to accommodate an appellant's hearing impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge appropriately accommodated the hearing impairment and that his interventions, when viewed in the context of a Small Claims Court trial involving self-represented litigants, did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant, a resident of a co-operative housing corporation, was evicted for failing to perform mandatory volunteer work.

She had provided a doctor's note stating she was medically incapable of performing the work due to a mental disability, but refused to provide further medical details to the co-op board.

The Divisional Court allowed her appeal, holding that the court and the co-op board must apply the Ontario Human Rights Code when considering an eviction under the Co-Operative Corporations Act.

The court found that the co-op had a duty to accommodate the appellant's disability and that requiring her to divulge private medical information as a condition of maintaining her housing violated the Code.