Susan G. Himel

The self-represented appellant tenant requested an adjournment of his appeal because he had not received the hearing transcript and lacked assistance from an amicus.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting that a previous order had made the hearing date peremptory.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which had issued amended orders correcting a typographical error in a 2002 assessment decision six years later, resulting in a back tax bill of over $500,000.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the amended decisions and that correctness outweighed any prejudice to the taxpayer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction and by failing to balance the objective of correctness with the delay and prejudice suffered by the taxpayer.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to indefinitely suspend his driver's licence following his third impaired driving conviction.

The applicant argued that his first conviction, which occurred when he was a youth, could not be used to calculate the suspension under the Highway Traffic Act due to the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

He also argued that the Registrar was estopped from imposing the indefinite suspension because he had previously received an erroneous notice of a three-year suspension and a notice of eligibility for reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no conflict between the provincial and federal legislation, and holding that the doctrines of public estoppel and legitimate expectations cannot override the Registrar's mandatory statutory duty to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed a summary trial decision dismissing her claim for $32,000 under an equity-splitting agreement related to the sale of the respondent's house.

The trial judge had found the agreement unenforceable because the appellant was not a licensed real estate agent under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, and because the agreement was unconscionable due to the respondent's vulnerability and unequal bargaining power.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the bargain was unfair and unconscionable.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring it to pay a rent differential to a former tenant who vacated due to a bedbug infestation.

The Board found that the landlord's failure to address the infestation in the common hallway substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment and induced him to move out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'induced' to include a failure to act was reasonable and consistent with the tenant protection objectives of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellants, private electrical contractors, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board which held that affiliates of municipally-owned electricity distributors are permitted to provide street lighting services under section 73(1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, without geographic restriction.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of parts of a bus services contract between the applicant and a municipality.

The adjudicator found that the third party exemption under s. 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply because the information was mutually generated through negotiation, rather than supplied by the applicant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and that the applicant failed to establish that the inferred disclosure or immutability exceptions applied.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of certain schedules to a project agreement between the applicant and Infrastructure Ontario.

The applicant argued the information was exempt from disclosure under the third party information exemption in s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC adjudicator reasonably concluded that the disputed information was the product of a negotiation process and was not 'supplied' by the applicant in confidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to Future Economic Loss (FEL) and Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefits.

The applicant suffered a workplace back injury and later a non-work-related motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not totally disabled prior to the motor vehicle accident and upheld the 18% NEL award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and fell within its specialized expertise.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration as a real estate broker due to serious and repeated dishonest conduct.

The Tribunal found the appellant engaged in mortgage fraud, forged signatures, and made false statements on his broker renewal applications.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in admitting certain evidence and misapprehended other evidence.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding her $5,000 for loss of income and $1,200 for future therapy following assaults by her former husband.

She argued the Board erred in attributing her psychological condition and inability to work to factors other than the assaults, and in failing to apply the 'thin skull' rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that pre-existing and subsequent stressors contributed to her inability to work, akin to the 'crumbling skull' doctrine, and that the award fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The appellants appealed a decision quashing a property assessment against the respondent for advertising displays at Pearson International Airport.

The lower court had found that the respondent was not an occupant and that the assessment was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent was an occupant under the Assessment Act as it had actual occupation, exclusive possession, value, and permanence.

The court also held that the doctrine of paramount occupancy did not apply, or alternatively, that the respondent was the paramount occupier.

Finally, the court found no evidence that the assessment corporation acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily.

The Attorney General brought a motion to consolidate a Superior Court constitutional application and a Divisional Court appeal regarding the mandatory revocation of a pharmacist's license for professional misconduct.

The Attorney General also sought to remit the constitutional challenge to the Discipline Committee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the constitutional application at first instance.

The court also declined to remit the matter to the Discipline Committee, holding that exceptional circumstances justified early judicial intervention given the Committee's lack of expertise and inability to issue a general declaration of invalidity.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision assessing damages against her former employer for breaches of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, including reprisal and unpaid overtime.

The applicant argued the Board's damages award was insufficient and sought additional compensation for lost bonus pay, pension contributions, and extended wage loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 104 of the Act was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The Law Society moved to strike a portion of the appellant's notice of appeal on the basis that it was filed outside the 30-day time limit prescribed by Rule 61.04.

The appellant had appealed a decision on the merits and a subsequent costs decision, believing the time to appeal the merits ran from the date of the costs decision.

The court found the appeal of the merits decision was out of time, but exercised its discretion under Rule 3.02 to extend the time for filing, noting the lack of prejudice to the Law Society and the inextricable link between the merits and costs decisions.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) order directing it to cease collecting personal information from wine club members and to destroy previously collected information.

The LCBO argued the IPC breached procedural fairness by issuing the order without prior notice that such a remedy was being contemplated.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the IPC failed to provide adequate notice of the potential consequences of the privacy complaint investigation, thereby depriving the LCBO of a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue of remedy.

The IPC's order was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the registration of the respondent as a motor vehicle salesperson with conditions.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse registration due to the respondent's failure to supervise employees who committed extensive fraud, resulting in unpaid liens, taxes, and consumer complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that while the respondent was guilty of lax supervision, he was a victim of fraud and his personal honesty and integrity were not stained.

The Court also admitted fresh evidence of the respondent's guilty pleas to corporate tax offences but held it would not have changed the Tribunal's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for compensation after his housemate set fires in their residence and uttered death threats.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by requiring the appellant to prove the alleged offender intended to injure him through the arson, contrary to established case law.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Board for a re-hearing before a newly constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions that dismissed his five applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent church, and declared him a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no errors of law or unreasonable findings of fact in the Tribunal's decisions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The self-represented applicant sought to introduce a psychiatric report the day before the hearing without a proper affidavit or motion for fresh evidence.

The applicant requested an adjournment to properly serve a notice of motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for an adjournment and refused to admit the report, finding it irrelevant to the issues and noting that an adjournment would prejudice the responding parties.