Thomas R. Lederer

The applicants sought leave to appeal two decisions of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of parking lots and a development site in downtown Toronto.

The core issue was whether 'air rights' or development rights should be classified as 'land' or 'real property' under the Assessment Act, which would allow them to be classified as 'vacant land' or 'excess land' and taxed at a lower rate.

The Divisional Court found no serious debate that air rights are not land for the purposes of the Act, as they have no physical existence and are merely attributes of the land.

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Natural Resources granting a permit under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 for a highway project.

At the opening of the hearing, the respondents brought a preliminary motion to strike three affidavits filed by the applicant.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, striking two affidavits in their entirety and most of the third, emphasizing that judicial review is generally restricted to the record before the decision-maker.

The court noted that fresh evidence is only admissible in exceptional circumstances, which were not present, and criticized the parties for not resolving the evidentiary record prior to the hearing.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering her to pay her proportionate share of post-secondary tuition fees for her adult son under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant argued the son had withdrawn from parental control and was no longer a dependent child.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determination that the son remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act while pursuing his education.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision that overturned an arbitrator's order granting an adjournment and requiring the insured to attend an independent medical examination.

The insured had delivered new orthopedic reports shortly before the scheduled arbitration.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the interlocutory judicial review, finding that proceeding without the examination would deny the insurer procedural fairness and amount to trial by ambush.

The Court held that the Director's Delegate unreasonably fettered the arbitrator's discretion to ensure a fair hearing by requiring 'extraordinary circumstances' for an adjournment.

The decision of the Director's Delegate was quashed and the arbitrator's decision restored.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision finding that the respondent's notice requesting arbitration was filed within the 90-day limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, agreeing that the mediator's report was 'given' when received by the parties, and that delivering the notice to the general reception of the Financial Services Commission satisfied the filing rules.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her.

The Board had found that the tenant substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants by making excessive noise and unreasonably exhausting the hot water supply.

On appeal, the tenant alleged a conspiracy against her and a denial of her right to counsel, but the court found these were issues of fact, not law.

As the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 restricts appeals to questions of law, the court concluded no issue of law was raised, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting an application to terminate their membership and occupancy rights in a co-operative and ordering a writ of possession.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied the reasonableness standard to the co-operative board's eviction decision, which was justified by the appellants' arrears and history of late payments.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness and upheld the application judge's exercise of discretion in granting the writ of possession.

The plaintiff, an investment advisor, was terminated without cause and commenced a wrongful dismissal action.

Four years later, he sought to amend his Statement of Claim to increase damages, alleging loss of clientele and moral damages due to the lack of working notice.

The Master refused the amendments, finding they constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that there is no legal right to working notice and that the proposed claims for lost clientele and moral damages were untenable and statute-barred.

The appellant appealed a decision striking out his Statement of Defence and granting default judgment to the respondent bank for money owed on a visa account and personal line of credit.

The appellant had previously sued the bank in Small Claims Court over a set-off of funds, which he lost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision and noting that the appellant's defence was based on allegations already decided in Small Claims Court, rendering them subject to res judicata and cause of action estoppel.

The applicant union brought an application for judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a policy grievance concerning early retirement and separation allowances during long-term layoffs.

The Arbitrator had concluded that the specific benefits in Article 10.14 of the collective agreement only applied to layoffs resulting from integrations and rationalizations, not general layoffs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The defendants, lawyers and a law firm, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's refusal to strike paragraphs in a Statement of Claim.

The plaintiffs, victims of a Ponzi scheme, sued the defendants for negligence based on statements made during an Ontario Securities Commission investigation.

The defendants argued the statements were protected by absolute privilege.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to leave the issue of absolute privilege to the trial judge, and that the application of absolute privilege is a matter of significant importance.

The applicants sought to stay an ongoing coroner's inquest into the deaths of a mother and two children in a fire, pending judicial review of the coroner's refusal to expand the scope of the inquest and call certain witnesses regarding social services in the Jane-Finch community.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured completing the inquest.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order granting a Mareva injunction and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against his home.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant after being shot by him.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order because the requirements for a Certificate of Pending Litigation were not met, and the evidence of dissipation of assets for the Mareva injunction was based on the defendant's ill-health and need to pay legal fees rather than an intent to avoid judgment.

The court also found the matter to be of sufficient importance as the order expanded the circumstances in which such injunctions are granted.

The Equal Pay Coalition brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a judicial review of a decision by the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The underlying application concerned whether the employer failed to maintain compensation practices providing for pay equity.

The employer opposed the intervention, arguing the Coalition would not make a useful contribution and would duplicate the union's submissions.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the Coalition could bring a broader perspective and constructive contribution to the issues, particularly regarding international conventions and the relationship between the Pay Equity Act and the Human Rights Code.

The intervention was granted subject to strict limits on the Coalition's participation.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Coroner refusing to issue a summons for the production of videos depicting interactions between correctional staff and the deceased, Ashley Smith.

The Divisional Court found that the Coroner applied an incorrect and overly stringent test by requiring a demonstrated 'nexus' between the videos and the death, rather than assessing whether the evidence was 'material' to the purposes of the inquest.

The Court quashed the Coroner's decision and remitted the issue for reconsideration, holding that the denial of access to potentially relevant evidence constituted a breach of natural justice.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision finding that the respondent suffered a catastrophic impairment under s. 2(1.1)(g) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the decision, holding that the Delegate erred in law by concluding that a marked impairment in only one of four areas of functioning was sufficient for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Court further held that the Delegate erred by failing to exclude pain associated with physical injuries when assessing impairment due to mental or behavioural disorder, as required by the AMA Guides incorporated into the legislation.

The applicant sought judicial review of the LCBO's decision to award an agency store authorization to a competitor following a Request for Proposal process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the LCBO's decision was a commercial arrangement not subject to judicial review, as it did not involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision and lacked a sufficient public interest element.

In the alternative, the Court found that the procurement process was fair and the LCBO's decision was reasonable.

During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.

The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.

Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his application for unreasonable delay.

The events underlying the complaint occurred in 1994, but the application was not filed until 2010.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the 15-year delay would cause substantial prejudice to the respondents and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review for a declaration that the Ministry of Transportation unreasonably withheld a clearance letter for a subdivision development.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the Ministry was still actively reviewing the engineering drawings.

The Court further held that the appropriate forum to address difficulties in implementing draft plan approval conditions is the Ontario Municipal Board, which retained jurisdiction over the matter.