Thomas R. Lederer

The applicants brought an application alleging that the provincial and federal governments breached ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter by making decisions and implementing program changes which eroded access to affordable housing.

The respondents brought motions to dismiss the application on the grounds that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the issues raised were not justiciable.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the application, finding that s. 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to provide affordable housing, and the impugned decisions did not deny the applicants a benefit given to others under s. 15.

The court also held that the issues raised were not justiciable as they involved broad policy choices.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their personal injury action following a jury verdict that awarded zero damages for a motor vehicle accident.

The appellants argued the verdict was perverse because objective evidence showed a soft tissue injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury's assessment of credibility and conclusion that the injury was too slight to warrant compensation were entitled to great deference and supported by the evidence.

The court also found no errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision upholding a fine and suspension after his horse tested positive for banned substances.

The applicant challenged the validity of the Commission's rule imposing absolute liability on trainers for positive drug tests, arguing that a due diligence defence must be available.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission's broad statutory mandate to regulate horse racing in the public interest authorized the creation of an absolute liability rule.

The Court also found the Commission's rejection of the applicant's due diligence defence to be reasonable.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that terminated his supplemental benefits under s. 147(4) of the Workers' Compensation Act and replaced them with benefits under s. 147(2).

The applicant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to terminate the benefits and denied him procedural fairness by failing to provide notice or warn him of the downside risk of his appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably interpreted its home statute in determining the two benefit provisions are mutually exclusive.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant had initiated the appeal requesting the change in benefits.

The applicant First Nation sought an extension of time to perfect its judicial review application challenging the provincial approval of a mine closure plan.

The applicant requested the extension to await the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on leave to appeal in a related case concerning provincial authority under Treaty 3, or the completion of scheduled mediation.

The respondent mining company opposed further delay.

The court granted the extension to the earlier of 45 days after the release of the leave decision or 45 days after the completion of the mediation, balancing the need for clarity on the legal issues with the need to avoid indefinite delay.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing his claim for $14,000 against a law firm.

The appellant alleged the money was a retainer for unprovided services, while the law firm maintained $9,000 was received for rent owed by a sub-tenant, who corroborated this account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding misrepresentation regarding lighting services provided to the respondent.

The trial judge had found the individual appellant personally liable because the corporate appellant was dissolved.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding liability, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the proper defendant, holding that an action can be maintained against a dissolved corporation and there was no evidence the individual appellant was a party to the contract in his personal capacity.

Judgment was entered against the corporate defendant instead.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal an order allowing the plaintiff, an unregistered limited partnership, to continue an action commenced before it was properly registered.

The proposed appellant argued that the word 'maintain' in section 28 of the Limited Partnerships Act means 'commence', requiring the plaintiff to start a new action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting case law and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's determination that 'maintain' allows for the continuation of an action already commenced.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement of her claims for statutory accident benefits against her automobile insurer.

The appellant had accepted an offer to settle but later rescinded it, arguing the offer did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer and thus was subject to the rescission provisions of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the offer required the appellant to release future claims not included in her statement of claim, meaning it was not a valid Rule 49 offer.

The appeal was allowed and the judgment enforcing the settlement was set aside.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for compensation for mental and nervous shock following the death of his estranged wife.

The wife died after falling from a vehicle while attempting to sell illicit drugs.

The Board denied the applicant's claim based entirely on the wife's illegal conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board unreasonably failed to distinguish between the applicant's conduct and the wife's conduct, as the applicant was claiming as an independent victim.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a new hearing.

The appellant was successful on appeal and cross-appeal and sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $30,000.

The Divisional Court found the claimed hours and rates disproportionately high and fixed the costs of the appeal at $17,500 all inclusive.

The court declined to exercise its jurisdiction to award costs of the trial, leaving that determination to the trial judge or an assessment officer due to a prior reservation of jurisdiction and a dispute over an agreement between counsel.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the judge excluded opinion evidence from several of the appellant's treating professionals and medical assessors because they had not complied with the expert report requirements of Rule 53.03.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's rulings, confirming that the application of Rule 53.03 depends on the nature of the evidence (opinion vs. factual) rather than the role of the witness (treating professional vs. litigation expert).

The court held that any witness seeking to provide expert opinion evidence must comply with Rule 53.03.

The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a 12-month suspension and an indefinite restriction on needling the subclavius muscle.

The misconduct arose after the appellant performed acupuncture on a patient's subclavius muscle, causing a punctured lung (pneumothorax), and subsequently failed to refer the patient to a hospital when she presented with symptoms of the condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusions regarding the appellant's incompetence, failure to maintain professional standards, and disgraceful conduct were reasonable and supported by expert evidence.

The Court also upheld the penalty, noting it was within the reasonable range and justified by the need to protect the public.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for the winding-up of a corporation or other equitable relief under the Business Corporations Act.

The application judge had found no irreconcilable conflict, no exclusion from management, and no reasonable expectation that there would be a wind-up or forced sale of shares if an original party wished to withdraw.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying the plaintiff's action regarding allegedly defective organic asphalt shingles as a class proceeding.

The defendants argued that the claims for negligent design and negligent manufacture should have been pleaded separately, that there was no common defect, and that the claim for pure economic loss could not succeed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order, and emphasizing the flexibility of the class proceedings process.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission, arguing that the Commission unreasonably inferred that the appellant had knowledge of a proposed acquisition based on circumstantial evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission's detailed findings of fact provided clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to support the inference of knowledge.

The standard of review was agreed to be reasonableness, and the court found the Commission's inference to be reasonable and compelling.

The appellant, a lawyer whose licence was revoked for participating in mortgage fraud, appealed the Law Society appeal panel's decision affirming the revocation.

He argued that the hearing panel denied him procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment on medical grounds and later granting an adjournment on the condition that he refrain from practising law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing panel properly exercised its discretion in assessing the contradictory medical evidence and balancing the public interest against the appellant's requests.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their claims for property damage, including a mould problem.

The Board found that the landlords failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the tenants caused the problems.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's conclusion was a finding of fact and that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant client appealed an order varying an Assessment Officer's report.

The motion judge found that the Assessment Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by determining that the appellant was not a client of the respondent solicitor, which constituted a dispute over the retainer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the Assessment Officer improperly determined a retainer issue.

The court also upheld the motion judge's order imposing joint and several liability, noting the parties had previously consented to proceed by assessment on that basis.