Sabrina Sara Fiacco

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.

The tenants appealed an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued that the landlord failed to provide a copy of the lease, that the Board erred in determining the lawful rent, and that the N4 form was improperly served.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the initial landlord had already provided the lease, the tenancy predated the standard lease requirements, and the remaining issues were unreviewable questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The landlord was awarded costs of $12,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by failing to consider financial documents contained in his voluminous document brief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law, as the appellant had failed to enter the documents into evidence despite multiple directions and opportunities from the Adjudicator to do so.

The court also upheld the denial of an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The appellant tenant, who suffers from a mental health disability, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her due to disruptive and threatening behaviour towards other tenants.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly consider the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability under the Human Rights Code, failed to consider relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and denied her procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly determined that accommodating the tenant caused undue hardship to the landlord and other tenants, properly exercised its discretion regarding relief from eviction, and appropriately admitted and weighed hearsay evidence.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering eviction.

The Board found that the tenant substantially interfered with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment by repeatedly refusing entry to real estate agents, engaging in abusive behaviour, and sending threatening emails.

The tenant argued the Board erred by basing the eviction solely on his refusal to allow photographs of the unit and alleged bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tenant could not raise new issues not presented to the Board, the eviction was based on a broader pattern of conduct, and there was no evidence of bias.

The applicant, a survivor of institutional child abuse with a traumatic brain injury and PTSD, applied for admission to the University of Waterloo.

The university rejected his application based on poor grades he had obtained 13 years earlier at another institution, before his disabilities were diagnosed and accommodated.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the university had fulfilled its duty to accommodate.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court set aside the HRTO's decision, holding that the university discriminated against the applicant by relying on unaccommodated grades and failed to establish that assessing his application without those grades would cause undue hardship.

The appellant appealed from interim and final orders of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his request for compensation for an alleged assault and criminal conspiracy.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to issue summonses to three police officers and erred in assessing a police report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellant failed to show the officers had relevant or necessary evidence, and holding that the Board's assessment of the police report involved findings of fact outside the court's jurisdiction.

A preliminary request for a publication ban was also denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application as out of time, and a subsequent reconsideration decision.

The Tribunal found the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code and there was no evidence the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the test for admission on judicial review.

The Court held there was no denial of procedural fairness and the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, dismissing the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of workplace discrimination on the basis of race.

The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint because the 2009 and 2011 allegations were out of time, the 2014 termination was appropriately dealt with through a union grievance and arbitration, and there was insufficient evidence for the 2015 allegations.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, there was no denial of procedural fairness, and the Charter did not apply to private workplace interactions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction after police found a loaded firearm and drugs in her unit, which were possessed by her son.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by relying on hearsay evidence and misapplying the eviction and relief provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reliance on hearsay was permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the tenant's arguments raised unreviewable questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The appellant, a minor, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying her income support under the Ontario Works Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's grandmother, with whom she lived, met the definition of a 'parent' because she demonstrated a settled intention to treat the appellant as a child of her family.

The Tribunal also found no special circumstances existed to justify assistance.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because he had commenced a Superior Court action claiming a 50% ownership interest in the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine if the appellant was a tenant and to order eviction, as he was not a registered co-owner and no final court determination of co-ownership existed.

The Court also upheld the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, finding no denial of procedural fairness where the appellant voluntarily chose not to attend the hearing.

The appellant tenants appealed three orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board authorizing an above-guideline rent increase for municipal taxes and charges.

The landlord had applied for the increase based on fees paid for a Rental Housing Licence and Electrical Safety Authority inspections required by a municipal by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions that the fees qualified as municipal charges and were not exempt were reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Board's determination that it lacked discretion to amortize the rent increase over a period longer than 12 months.

Although the tenants received inadequate notice and disclosure initially, the Court found this procedural unfairness was cured by the Board's subsequent review hearings.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that police officers discriminated against him based on race when they arrested and charged him following a neighbour dispute.

The applicant argued the HRTO's decision was unreasonable, alleging the police response was disproportionate and influenced by racial stereotypes, and that the HRTO showed bias in its credibility assessments and drawing of adverse inferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO applied the correct legal principles, its credibility findings were entitled to high deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her complaint against the City of Toronto as an abuse of process, and against her union and its counsel for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant had previously settled her grievance and human rights complaint with the City but later filed a new complaint, alleging she signed the settlement under duress from her union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decision was reasonable and correct, as the settlement was binding and the allegations of duress did not invalidate it.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision which found that the respondent police service did not discriminate against her when officers apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was taken to the hospital after officers spent an hour trying to convince her to attend voluntarily.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no defect in the Tribunal's proceedings or its conclusion that the officers had cause to apprehend the applicant.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an alleged assault on February 26, 2014, including choking, uttering death threats, assault with a weapon (knife), and subsequent breaches of probation by contacting the complainant.

The Crown relied on the complainant's testimony and 74 pages of photographed text message screenshots purporting to be from the accused's phone.

The accused denied committing the assault and denied sending the text messages.

The court admitted reply evidence in the form of the accused's cell phone records from the service provider after the accused testified, finding the second exception to the rule against reply evidence was satisfied.

The court found the accused guilty of the two probation breach counts but acquitted him of the substantive offences due to reasonable doubt arising from credibility concerns regarding the complainant's evidence and employment records suggesting the accused was at work during the alleged assault.

The accused was charged with refusing a roadside screening demand after being pulled over for traffic violations.

The Crown alleged the accused unequivocally refused to provide a breath sample.

The court found that while the accused was legally obliged to comply with the demand, she was operating under a mistaken understanding of her legal rights and was confused rather than defiant.

The accused repeatedly requested access to counsel, which was not facilitated.

The court found a reasonable doubt existed as to whether the refusal was complete and unequivocal, particularly given the accused's confusion, her requests for legal advice, and the availability of counsel that could have clarified her obligations.

The charge was dismissed.