Sheila Cuthbertson

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissing her claim for compensation for mental shock suffered after her home was destroyed by arson.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by treating the appellant as a secondary victim and applying the wrong criteria to deny her claim.

The Court held that the appellant was a primary victim and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing a denial of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by receiving documentary evidence after the formal hearing without affording the tenant an opportunity to respond, and by failing to address this flaw on reconsideration.

The appeal was allowed, and a new hearing was directed before the Board, with instructions to consider new evidence regarding municipal restrictions.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant argued the Board erred in refusing an adjournment and lacked jurisdiction to impose a condition requiring completion of an alcohol withdrawal program.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal to adjourn given the continuing dangerous condition and the tenant's consent order to vacate.

The Court also held the condition issue was moot and, regardless, permitted under s. 204 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant, a recipient of disability benefits, applied for a retroactive special diet allowance for the period from June 1998 to November 2003.

The Director denied the application, and the Social Benefits Tribunal dismissed the subsequent appeal.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by not applying the relevant regulation retroactively and breached natural justice by requiring corroborative evidence without notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal made no error of law in determining the facts did not justify a retroactive award, and held there was no breach of procedural fairness as the onus was on the appellant to prove his claim.

The tenants appealed a Tribunal decision finding they committed an "illegal act" under s. 62(1) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, related to drug activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment pending the tenant's criminal charges.

The Court also held there was sufficient evidence of an illegal act and that the Tribunal properly considered how drug activities negatively affect the community's character and reasonable enjoyment.