Thomas R. Lederer

The appellants, a pub owner and his business, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board that confirmed a public health order issued against them.

The medical officer of health had ordered the pub to comply with COVID-19 regulations, including mask and vaccine mandates, or close.

The appellants openly defied the order, leading to a restraining order and the changing of the pub's locks.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no merit to the appellants' arguments, including their reliance on the federal Canadian Bill of Rights, and held that the Board did not err in its interpretation and application of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a plastic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC required the applicant to be cautioned for failing to attend in person to a patient with a severe hand injury while on-call, and advised him to make appropriate efforts to communicate urgency when handing over care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB's decision was reasonable and owed deference, as the record supported the conclusions that the applicant should have attended the emergency room and failed to adequately communicate the urgency of the patient's referral.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Board to reaffirm a cost apportionment formula for shared social services that had been used since 2004.

The applicant argued that the governing regulation required a 'double majority vote' in every year the alternate formula was continued.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislation did not require an annual double majority vote once the alternate formula was initially approved, and that the Board's decision was neither ultra vires nor unreasonable.

The insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the insured's claim for income replacement benefits was not statute-barred, as the termination letter was not clear and unequivocal.

The insured cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits, arguing the adjudicator failed to consider whether alternative employment was comparable in status and reward.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the limitation issue was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal, and that the post-104 test under the Schedule does not require alternative employment to be comparable in status and reward.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of M.D. Faieta J. dated September 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,167.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of David L. Edwards J. dated December 15, 2021.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000, to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

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

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs following the dismissal of an application for judicial review and related motions brought by a physician and her patients.

The applicants argued they were public interest litigants and should pay no costs, or alternatively, reduced costs.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest litigant argument, finding the physician was pursuing private and pecuniary interests in a dispute with her regulator, and the patients lacked standing.

The court ordered the patients to pay $8,000 and the physician to pay $18,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Shortly before the hearing, the self-represented respondent advised the court that she wished to respond to the appeal in French and be addressed in French.

The panel adjourned the matter to be heard on the merits by a bilingual panel in the interests of justice.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Shortly before the hearing, the self-represented respondent requested to respond to the appeal in French and to be addressed in French.

The Divisional Court adjourned the matter to be heard on the merits by a bilingual panel in the interests of justice.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application as out of time, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace investigation did not form part of a 'series of incidents' with earlier alleged discriminatory acts by a dean, and thus the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decisions, finding that the HRTO reasonably concluded the investigation was discrete and separate from the earlier incidents, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

At the outset of a judicial review, the Divisional Court raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Review Committee and the Child and Family Services Review Board under the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court directed that this preliminary issue be determined prior to the hearing on the merits and adjourned the matter for submissions.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Lavine J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The plaintiffs/appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gorman J. dated June 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to judicially review the decision of an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) to investigate her, impose interim restrictions, and subsequently suspend her medical license for issuing unjustified COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

A group of anonymous patients also sought judicial review, arguing the investigation infringed their privacy and autonomy.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' application for lack of standing.

The court dismissed the physician's application, finding the challenge to the investigation decision premature and the interim restriction and suspension decisions reasonable given the immediate risk to patient safety.

The court also granted the CPSO's motion for a publication ban to protect the identities of complainants.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that declined to compress the wage grid for registered nurses and nurse practitioners.

The union argued the existing grid was discriminatory and that correcting it was exempt from the 1% compensation cap under Bill 124.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the interest arbitration process was not the appropriate forum to make the necessary adjudicative findings of specific Human Rights Code breaches by 131 separate employers, nor to usurp the ongoing pay equity process.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 21, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 12, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000, payable by the moving parties David Atsushi Ohashi and Pamela Gloria Ohashi.