Sidney N. Lederman

The applicant sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash a warrant of seizure and sale issued by the Minister of Revenue.

The warrant was issued more than six years after the tax assessment became binding.

The Divisional Court held that under Rules 60.07(2) and 60.07.1(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Minister was required to obtain leave to issue the warrant.

As no leave was obtained, the warrant was quashed.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to attend a mandatory Record Keeping Workshop, and the resulting 60-day suspension.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction because it did not require proof of a formal Council resolution making the workshop mandatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that official College notices were sufficient evidence that attendance was mandatory, especially since the appellant never opened his mail from the College.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's history of ignoring College communications.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, affirmed by the Director's Delegate, awarding costs against him personally in a Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) arbitration.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review.

The court found no denial of procedural fairness, as the applicant had notice and an opportunity to respond.

The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the applicant caused expenses to be incurred without reasonable cause, and dismissed the application with costs.

The applicant sought to introduce fresh evidence on an application for judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which had upheld an Arbitrator's decision.

The Director's Delegate had previously refused to admit the applicant's affidavit because it failed the Palmer test, as the evidence was available during the arbitration.

The Divisional Court agreed, refusing to admit the affidavit for the purposes of the application.

The court allowed certain other documents to be referenced on consent of the parties, but excluded the accompanying affidavit.

The appellant, the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal ordering it to reimburse the respondent $1,206.50 for the airfare portion of a cancelled travel package.

The Tribunal had rejected the appellant's documentary evidence of the airfare cost and instead accepted the respondent's evidence of comparable airfare prices.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence as the best available.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant creditor appealed a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment against the respondent guarantors for a mortgage shortfall.

The motion judge had excluded the appellant's affidavit evidence as hearsay and found genuine issues for trial regarding alleged oral representations by the appellant's employee that the guarantee would not be enforced.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by excluding the affidavits and failing to apply the parole evidence rule.

Given the 'entire agreement' clause in the guarantee, the alleged oral representations raised no genuine issue for trial.

Summary judgment was granted against the borrowers and guarantors for the deficiency.

At the opening of a judicial review hearing, the applicant moved for leave to adduce fresh evidence and subsequently sought an adjournment to bring the new evidence before the Information and Privacy Commissioner for reconsideration.

The respondents did not oppose the adjournment.

The Divisional Court vacated a prior order to permit the motion and granted the adjournment.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judge's decision to deduct Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) from a jury award for past income loss, which reduced the award to zero, and the subsequent costs order against him.

The Divisional Court upheld the IRB deduction, finding no evidence the jury had already accounted for it.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge breached natural justice by deciding the defendants' entitlement to costs without hearing submissions from the plaintiff.

The costs issue was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant, a spiritualist, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $5,411.00 for breach of contract.

The respondent had paid the appellant for services to reunite her with her ex-boyfriend, but the appellant provided no services.

The Deputy Judge found the respondent credible and ruled in her favour.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's credibility findings or conclusions, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant tenant brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Dismissal Order that dismissed his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for failure to perfect the appeal on time.

The tenant explained the delay was due to financial inability to pay for transcripts and unfamiliarity with procedural requirements.

The court applied a contextual approach, finding the tenant moved promptly to set aside the order and the landlord would suffer no significant prejudice.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order was set aside, and the tenant was granted a short extension to perfect the appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which dismissed their claims against Tarion Warranty Corporation for alleged defects in their new home, including foundation issues, basement moisture, and squeaky floors.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's findings of fact.

The Court found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded, based on the evidence of civil engineers and construction managers, that the home was built in accordance with the design and not too close to the water table.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicants, three chartered accountants, sought judicial review of decisions by the Discipline Committee and Appeal Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario finding them guilty of professional misconduct in relation to the 1997 audit of Livent Inc. The Divisional Court granted the applications in part.

The Court quashed the convictions on charges 1(i) and 1(iii) due to a breach of procedural fairness, as the applicants were convicted based on their treatment of a 'Put' agreement which was not part of the charges or the case they had to meet.

The Court also quashed the convictions on charges 1(iv) and 2(viii) as unreasonable.

However, the Court upheld the convictions on charges 2(ii), (iii), (iv), and (v), finding it was reasonable for the committees to conclude the auditors failed to exercise appropriate professional scepticism.

Finally, the Court quashed the costs award, holding that the Discipline Committee lacked jurisdiction to order costs because its by-law conflicted with the requirements of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The respondents moved for security for costs of an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, arguing the appeal was frivolous and the corporate appellant lacked assets in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the appeal was not devoid of merit given previous findings regarding the respondent's credibility.

Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide a breakdown of projected costs or evidence that the appellant lacked assets of any kind to cover costs.

The respondents moved ex parte to dismiss the appeal after the appellant failed to comply with a peremptory order to perfect the appeal by a specified date.

The court noted that the appellant had not picked up or paid for the completed transcript.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to vary a final child support order and rescind arrears.

The original order imputed an income of $30,000, but the appellant provided uncontradicted evidence that he had not held employment since 1998 due to severe depression and was receiving disability benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring this material change in circumstances and relying on the respondent's unsworn statements.

The appeal was allowed, arrears were reduced to $15,240, and ongoing support was reduced to $161 per month.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order based on rent arrears and personal use.

The tenant did not appear at the motion.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's appeal raised only questions of fact regarding procedural fairness at the Board, not questions of law, and noted that the tenant had failed to perfect the appeal.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions and requested to set aside a Memorandum of Settlement reached at the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant claimed he signed the settlement while impaired by medication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence of impairment and noting it lacked jurisdiction to review a settlement agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the application was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay, as the applicant waited eleven months to commence the application and another seven months to perfect it.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) concerning the registration of a real estate broker and brokerage.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to make the necessary threshold determinations under s. 10(1)(a) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 before ordering remedies.

Furthermore, the LAT exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the registration of the respondent as a salesperson, which was not an issue before it.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a rehearing.

The Court also provided guidance for the rehearing, noting that the civil standard of proof is a balance of probabilities and that interfering with trust accounts is inherently wrongful.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion to quash an Assessment Order to the Divisional Court.

The respondent argued the order was final and outside the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court agreed the order was final as it disposed of a substantive right.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding that the union violated the collective agreement by threatening a full-time firefighter with union charges if he accepted a volunteer position with the respondent town.

The arbitrator held that the union president's actions interfered with the town's right to use volunteer firefighters and that the union could not rely on its constitution to derogate from its obligations under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.