Thomas R. Lederer

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for persistent late payment of rent and the landlord's need for the unit for a family member.

The tenant argued the Board erred by refusing an adjournment and denying procedural fairness when he failed to attend the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the Board reasonably refused the adjournment due to a lack of supporting evidence and offered the tenant an opportunity to participate by telephone.

The eviction order was upheld, though enforcement was delayed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued that the notice of termination was invalid because it was signed by the landlord's property manager, and that section 43(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires an agent to be licensed by the Law Society of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's interpretation that the Act does not define 'agent' and does not require an agent signing a notice of termination to be licensed to provide legal services.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for committing an illegal act, seriously impairing safety, and substantially interfering with reasonable enjoyment.

The Board found the tenant threatened a property manager with a machete, acted aggressively, and failed to pay utilities.

On appeal, the tenants argued the eviction provision for illegal acts without a criminal conviction was unconstitutional, but the Divisional Court dismissed this as it was not raised below and no constitutional notice was served.

The Court found no errors of law in the Board's evidentiary findings or its refusal to grant relief from eviction, and dismissed the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for rent arrears.

At the hearing, the tenant sought to raise maintenance issues under s. 82(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act but provided only four days' notice instead of the required five.

The tenant argued that because the fifth day prior to the hearing fell on a Sunday, the time to serve notice was extended to Monday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the holiday extension rule did not apply because the notice requirement was to serve 'at least' five days prior, meaning nothing expired on the Sunday.

The Board's discretionary refusal to hear the issues was upheld.

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

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

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

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

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The court dispensed with the requirement for a formal issued and entered order in the motion record to save court resources.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $4,500 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The appellant was struck by a car while riding his bicycle and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the application.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a video of the accident, permitting the respondent's expert to testify beyond the scope of his report, and refusing to allow the appellant to call reply evidence.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his human rights complaint against his former employer, coworkers, and a workplace investigator.

The HRTO had dismissed the complaint against the employer and certain coworkers under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a concurrent civil action based on the same facts.

The HRTO also dismissed the complaint against the workplace investigator, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, following Vavilov, and found that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and procedurally fair.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to proceed with her complaint against members of the Toronto Police Service.

The applicant alleged that the police failed to properly investigate her reports of being followed and harassed, and discriminated against her by referring to her as an 'Emotionally Disturbed Person' (EDP) in their reports.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint, concluding it was not in the public interest to proceed as an investigation was unlikely to establish misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's decision reasonable.

The court noted that classifying an individual as EDP is not inherently discriminatory, and additional police reports filed on consent demonstrated that the police had in fact investigated the applicant's concerns.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a housing co-operative.

He argued procedural unfairness regarding the scheduling of an expedited remote hearing, the use of security video evidence, and findings on conduct not in the eviction notices, as well as a failure to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the remote hearing process or the admission of evidence, and concluding that the adjudicator had appropriately considered and accommodated his disability by delaying the eviction.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 5, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,500 to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $4,500 to the responding party.

The applicant, a tobacco farmer, sought judicial review of a Ministry of Finance decision refusing to issue him Dealer and Producer Registration Certificates for the 2021 calendar year.

The Ministry based its refusal on the applicant's history of disruptive and obstructionist behaviour toward inspectors, concluding there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not comply with the Tobacco Tax Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness and that the Ministry's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under s. 3.1(1) 2. iii of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant suffered a severe and permanent alteration of the structure of her leg, but her functional mobility impairment (measured by the SCIM) was only temporary.

The Divisional Court upheld the adjudicator's interpretation that the SABS requires both the structural and functional alterations to be permanent to meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Pinto J. dated September 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. dated September 3, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated October 16, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The self-represented appellant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed her application for failure to appear and denied her request for reconsideration.

The appellant had missed the start of a telephone hearing due to a scheduling mistake and childcare duties, but attempted to join and emailed the tribunal within the scheduled hearing time.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant provided a sufficient explanation for her delay and that the HRTO's refusal to reconsider the dismissal was unreasonable.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter was remitted for a new hearing date.