Stephen T. Bale

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the National Dental Examining Board, which denied her appeal of a failing grade on a clinical skills exam.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application for delay, noting it was commenced 14 months after the decision.

The Divisional Court found the delay excessive, rejected the applicant's explanation regarding without prejudice communications, and found the respondent would suffer prejudice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed for delay.

Following convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and breach of recognizance arising from repeated sexual abuse of a child during family sleep-overs, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, and treated as aggravating the victim's age, the abuse of trust, and the significant psychological and familial harm documented in multiple victim impact statements.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, employment history, compliance with bail, and supportive reference letters.

A 34-month sentence, less 5 days' credit for pre-sentence custody, together with ancillary no-contact, firearms, SOIRA, DNA, and long-term child-contact prohibitions, was held to be fit.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay the respondent tenant $12,000 for illegally collected rent.

The tenant had signed a new lease with the appellant, who had purchased the property, doubling the rent without a Notice of Rent Increase.

The Board found the sole purpose of the new lease was to increase the rent, making the increase void ab initio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's conclusions were based on findings of fact that were not subject to appeal and that the Board applied the correct legal principles.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for unauthorized occupants, and a subsequent review decision that declined to set aside the termination order.

The tenant argued she did not receive notice of the original hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's conclusion that the tenant failed to exercise due diligence in checking her mail and was therefore reasonably able to participate in the hearing.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's decision that dismissed his motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court order.

The Divisional Court panel found that the motions judge applied the correct legal principles and that there was no reasonable explanation for the moving party's delay of over three years.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or reasonable apprehension of bias, the court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party.

The appellant massage therapist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient.

The appellant argued the investigation was procedurally unfair, there was undue delay, and the Committee erred in its credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that any initial procedural unfairness was cured, there was no evidence of prejudice from delay, and the Committee's credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a national policy grievance.

The grievance alleged the employer's policy regarding the transfer of employees with permanent partial disabilities violated the collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator breached procedural fairness due to a five-year delay in rendering the decision and by relying on a provision of the collective agreement not raised by the parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delay did not cause significant prejudice and the arbitrator was entitled to consider the entire collective agreement.

The court also held the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the duty to accommodate was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision dismissing her discrimination complaint against the respondent accounting bodies.

The applicant, whose second language is English, failed a final accounting exam and alleged constructive discrimination based on language ability and ethnic origin.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's hearing was procedurally fair and its decision reasonable, as language ability is not a prohibited ground of discrimination and the applicant failed to establish a nexus between her language ability and her ethnic origin.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ottawa Public Library's decision to cancel their room rental agreement for the screening of a controversial movie.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on a preliminary issue, finding that the library's decision was private and contractual in nature.

Applying the Air Canada factors, the court concluded that the decision lacked the sufficient public character required to be amenable to judicial review, as it did not involve the exercise of a statutory power.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her.

The eviction was based on an application for causing serious problems and committing an illegal act by interfering with the hydro supply to her unit after it was disconnected for non-payment.

The Board found she or someone on her behalf cut the deadbolt off the protected hydro switch to restore electricity, creating an extreme danger.

The Divisional Court found no error of law in the Board's reliance on circumstantial evidence, noting she was the only one to benefit from the restored electricity.

The appeal was dismissed, but the eviction enforcement date was delayed.

The defendants applied for judicial review of an interlocutory costs order made by a Small Claims Court deputy judge at a settlement conference.

The deputy judge had ordered $500 in costs against the defendants for taking an 'all or nothing' position and refusing to compromise.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application to set aside the costs order, finding that the deputy judge had jurisdiction to make a costs order and that any error in doing so did not amount to a loss of jurisdiction or a breach of procedural fairness.

However, the court ordered that the matter proceed directly to trial rather than returning to the same deputy judge for a second settlement conference.

The appellant appealed three orders dismissing his motions to set aside a previous order that upheld the revocation of his building permit, and a related costs order.

The appellant had attempted to rely on a purported zoning map to reinstate his permit, which the motion judge found was not genuine.

He also argued that his property had legal nonconforming use status, which the motion judge rejected as res judicata and an extraordinary intensification of use.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings, upholding the application of res judicata, and affirming the full indemnity costs award due to the appellant's use of a fraudulent document.

The appellant tenant appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his applications as abandoned.

The appellant failed to attend the initial hearing and later left a review hearing after his request for an adjournment was denied.

The Divisional Court found no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice, holding that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion to deny the adjournment and manage its own procedure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering him to vacate a property so the respondent landlord could occupy it for personal use.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the parties had an agreement of purchase and sale, not a tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction to determine if the Residential Tenancies Act applied and that its factual findings of a tenancy and good faith requirement for possession were reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness regarding late-filed evidence.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering him to pay damages to the respondent tenant for a bed bug infestation.

The landlord argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the property was exempt as shared accommodation.

The Board found as a fact that the tenant was not required to share a kitchen or bathroom with the landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal was restricted to questions of law under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and the landlord was improperly challenging findings of fact.

The appellant was injured on a GO Bus and awarded $35,000 in non-pecuniary damages by a jury.

The trial judge reduced the award to zero by applying the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act, finding that while the respondent employer was vicariously liable, its liability could not exceed that of its protected employee driver pursuant to s. 267.5(10.1).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that an employer's vicarious liability is capped at the amount for which the protected defendant employee is liable.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision ordering no costs payable by either party following a successful Motion to Change.

The appellant argued he was entitled to costs based on his success and two offers to settle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly determined that the presumption of costs was outweighed by the undue hardship an adverse costs award would cause the respondent and the child in her care.

The court held the trial judge's exercise of discretion was entitled to deference.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her from her subsidized housing unit for allegedly throwing a rabbit off her balcony.

The Board's finding was based entirely on double hearsay evidence—a police officer reading another officer's notes of a statement made by the tenant's ex-boyfriend.

The tenant and a witness testified the rabbit jumped, but the Board preferred the hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that relying on untested, highly prejudicial hearsay evidence without giving the tenant an opportunity to cross-examine the key witness constituted a denial of procedural fairness.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender assessment under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code following the offender's convictions for multiple firearms and violence offences, including attempt to commit murder.

The court reviewed the offender's criminal history, which included a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, and found reasonable grounds to believe he might be found to be a dangerous offender.

The application for an assessment was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding a voluntary severance program.

The Divisional Court found that the Board reasonably applied the test for the duty of fair representation, did not misapprehend the evidence, provided adequate reasons, and did not breach the principles of natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.