Sabrina Sara Fiacco

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that imposed conditions on the respondents' motor vehicle salesperson registrations rather than revoking them.

The respondents, principals of a car dealership, had failed to supervise employees who engaged in repeated dishonest conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT erred in principle by failing to ascribe appropriate regulatory responsibility to the respondents for the repeated misconduct and by failing to consider the overall context of the business operations.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a fresh hearing on remedy before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of reprisal.

The applicant had posted a negative online review about his former employer's shift assignment practices, prompting the employer to send a cease and desist letter threatening civil action.

The HRTO found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had never claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Human Rights Code prior to the alleged threat.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision reasonable, as the anti-reprisal provisions protect access to the Tribunal, not public speech unconnected to a Code claim.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed most of her discrimination and reprisal application for delay.

The HRTO had directed a combined summary hearing (to assess reasonable prospect of success) and preliminary hearing (to assess delay).

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO breached procedural fairness and rendered an unreasonable decision by conflating the two hearings, specifically by making substantive determinations about the merits of the applicant's timely allegations during the delay hearing without permitting viva voce evidence on the merits.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the HRTO decisions were set aside in part, and the matter was remitted to the HRTO.

The appellant, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in a 1999 motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his entitlement to attendant care benefits.

The LAT had awarded a minimal monthly amount, focusing on the care actually provided by his family rather than his need for supervisory care due to his inability to respond to emergencies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test under the 1996 SABS and that the decision was unreasonable.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant insurer appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision finding that the respondent, a 19-year-old student athlete who was rendered tetraplegic in a motor vehicle accident, was principally dependent on his sister for care and therefore an insured person under her automobile insurance policy.

The Divisional Court found that the adjudicator identified the correct legal principles regarding dependency and reasonably applied them to the evidence, which showed the respondent relied on his sister for physical and emotional support despite living away for school.

The appeal and judicial review were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision denying his request to reactivate his human rights application.

The application had been deferred pending grievance arbitrations, which were withdrawn in 2018.

The applicant filed his reactivation request over four years later.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit due to the length of the delay, the lack of a reasonable explanation, and prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and noting the applicant was the author of his own misfortune.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal granting a three-month adjournment to the respondent insurer.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 to consider dismissing the proceeding.

The court found that the application was premature, as courts rarely intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, and moot, as the adjourned hearing date had already arrived.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, without prejudice to the applicant's right to raise procedural issues in a future review of the final decision.

The York University Staff Association (YUSA) and the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

YUSA sought to intervene as an added party under Rule 13.01, while BLAC sought to intervene as a friend of the Court under Rule 13.02.

The applicant consented, but the respondent university opposed.

The Divisional Court granted both motions, finding that YUSA had a significant interest in the workplace procedures at issue and that BLAC would provide a useful systemic perspective on anti-Black racism without expanding the issues or causing undue delay.

Two organizations, York University Staff Association (YUSA) and Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC), sought leave to intervene in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision dismissed most of the applicant's discrimination claims for being outside the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to intervene.

The court found that YUSA did not have a direct interest in the narrow limitation period issue before the court, and that BLAC would not provide a distinct perspective from the applicant and risked introducing irrelevant peripheral issues.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision evicting him for late payment of rent.

During the hearing, the LTB member orally ruled that the landlord's N5 notice was invalid, leading the self-represented tenant to abandon evidence and arguments regarding retaliation under s. 83(3)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

However, in the written decision, the member reversed this ruling without giving the tenant an opportunity to be heard.

The Divisional Court held that this reversal, combined with the member's refusal to hear the tenant's evidence regarding the landlord's conduct, resulted in a denial of procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a rehearing.

The applicant commenced a second application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) seeking over $100 million in damages against her insurer, adjusters, and health professionals for alleged tortious conduct related to her statutory accident benefits (SABS) claim.

The LAT declined to process the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to award damages or make orders against non-insurer parties.

The applicant sought judicial review and appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the proceedings under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that the LAT is a statutory body without jurisdiction to award general or non-compensatory damages, and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final LAT decision regarding her SABS.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that denied their request for an extension of time to review a consent eviction order.

The Divisional Court issued a notice that the appeal may be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the notice of appeal failed to identify any questions of law, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants did not file responding submissions.

The court dismissed the appeal, lifted the automatic stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination claim for being filed one day beyond the one-year limitation period.

The HRTO had refused to extend the time limit, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, noting the applicant had filed a timely complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and moved with reasonable dispatch to file with the HRTO after the federal commission declined jurisdiction.

The HRTO's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for a determination on the merits.

The appellant sought to set aside a settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits reached in 2016, arguing he lacked the capacity to enter into the contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no errors of law in the capacity analysis and concluding the decision was reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective expert capacity report.

The appellant sought to quash a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a reconsideration decision, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the appellant was given notice of the hearing, did not request an in-person hearing or accommodation, and did not raise procedural unfairness in his reconsideration request.

The court noted that the decisions do not bar the appellant's claims for attendant care benefits or a special award relating to the timing of non-earner benefits payments.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant's son, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant himself, was improperly attempting to represent his mother and pursue the litigation on his own behalf without her sworn authorization or proper medical evidence of her capacity.

Concluding that the application was an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent prior orders, the Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding.

The tenant appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the landlord an above guideline rent increase (AGI) for eligible capital expenditures related to window and door replacements.

The tenant argued the replacements were regular maintenance, his specific unit should not face an increase as his windows were not replaced, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's determination that the work constituted capital expenditures under the Residential Tenancies Act, and no breaches of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application against the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

The applicant alleged constructive discrimination after the National Committee on Accreditation required him to complete two years of in-class instruction because his foreign law degree was obtained through online self-study.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the mode of study policy was not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and applied to all students regardless of place of origin, age, or family status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding the revocation of a motor vehicle dealer's registration.

The appellant Registrar opposed the motion, arguing the LAT's intervention would defend its own decision and compromise impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed factum provided a nuanced analysis of the standard of review without taking a position on the merits, thereby offering a useful contribution without raising impartiality concerns.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and reconsideration decision which found his motor vehicle accident injuries were subject to the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued his pre-existing shoulder injury, psychological symptoms, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that while the adjudicator made a minor factual error regarding a physiotherapy visit, the overall conclusion was well-supported by medical evidence, including reports from the respondent's assessors.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.