Thomas R. Lederer

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against an OPP inspector.

The complaint alleged the inspector failed to properly investigate the applicant's earlier complaint regarding the seizure of his boat's mooring anchor and a subsequent mischief charge.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD's decision not to proceed with the complaint was reasonable and within its statutory discretion.

The court also held that the OIPRD's internal review process met the required duty of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord to demolish the rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board erred in finding the landlord took all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary demolition permit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding was one of fact or mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the court found the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in determining that only the demolition permit, not a building permit, was relevant, and that vacant possession was required to obtain it.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her request to convert a scheduled videoconference hearing into a written hearing due to her psychological condition.

When the appellant's counsel declined to proceed without instructions, the adjudicator dismissed the application for statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias, denial of natural justice, or procedural unfairness in the adjudicator's handling of the hearing or her subsequent written and reconsideration decisions.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the impugned order was final, meaning an appeal could be brought as of right.

The court set a deadline for any motion to extend the time to appeal and ordered no costs for the leave motion.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and $5,000 to the responding estate trustees.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 4, 2022 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party uploaded their costs materials to CaseLines by the directed deadline, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,334.37 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated August 31, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to pay damages for an illegal eviction.

They argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the tenant shared a kitchen or bathroom with the owner under s. 5(i).

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the exemption does not apply when the owner is a corporation, as a corporation cannot 'live' in the premises or share facilities in the manner contemplated by the Act.

The court also dismissed the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, upholding the corrected damages award of $14,620.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal award made under the Insurance Act following a fire at his property.

The applicant argued the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction, denied procedural fairness, and had a conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the umpire had jurisdiction to set the appraisal process and that the applicant had effectively withdrawn from the process by failing to file an appraisal brief or attend the hearing.

The court also held that the applicant's conflict of interest objection was untimely and deemed waived.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that granted development charge credits to a group of developers for both work performed and cash contributions made under a Core Infrastructure Agreement.

The Divisional Court held that while the LPAT had jurisdiction to review the City's refusal to grant credits, it erred in law by treating cash contributions as 'work performed' under section 38(1) of the Development Charges Act.

The Court concluded that cash contributions are not eligible for development charge credits.

The Court also found that a complaint filed by some developers was not out of time.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed an order refusing his motion to change a final order regarding child support arrears.

At the commencement of the appeal hearing, the self-represented respondent requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, noting that the parties were involved in another family law proceeding and a global mediation might resolve all issues.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment sine die to allow the parties an opportunity to seek a global resolution.

The applicant purchased a gas station and convenience store and was subsequently served with a notice of prohibition under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, suspending tobacco sales for six months.

The notice was based on tobacco sales convictions against the previous owner.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the prohibition was arbitrary and breached procedural fairness since it had no connection to the offences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the legislation mandates an automatic prohibition upon repeat convictions at a specific location, intentionally placing the onus on prospective purchasers to conduct due diligence.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness as the Minister's duty to issue the notice was mandatory.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In the absence of a costs outline, costs were fixed at a reduced amount of $2,500 payable to the responding parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decision to award a transit operations and maintenance contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued that the successful bidder's proposal was non-compliant with the Request for Proposals because it included a subcontractor who was already the contractor for another transit division, allegedly violating a one-contractor-per-division rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the municipality's interpretation of the RFP—that the restriction applied only to contractors, not subcontractors—was reasonable and that the procurement process was fair and transparent.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The court had previously raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Review Committee and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

After reviewing additional materials filed by the parties, the court concluded the matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The court also granted the applicant leave to file an amended factum over the respondent's objection, and set a schedule for further filings.