Thomas R. Lederer

The moving party sought leave to appeal an earlier endorsement of Justice Nadeau.

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

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order on a motion to change child support, arguing errors of fact and law regarding imputed income and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, noting the appellant's persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

However, the Court found an error of law in the trial judge's application of the 2017 Guidelines instead of the 2011 Guidelines for the period prior to November 2017.

The appeal was allowed in part to correct the child support calculations using the 2011 Guidelines, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Committee of the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, which refused to hear his late compassionate appeal regarding a failed dental exam.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's decision on the untimeliness of the appeal was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness by the lack of an oral hearing.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that the respondent employers were not statutorily obligated to negotiate the maintenance of pay equity plans following a health services integration.

The union argued that the Pay Equity Act required mandatory bargaining for pay equity maintenance and that the Tribunal's interpretation violated the freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted the Act as placing the responsibility for maintaining pay equity solely on the employer, with the union's role limited to monitoring and filing complaints.

The Court also found that the Tribunal's decision did not disproportionately limit Charter protections.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

At the hearing, the Board member refused to allow the tenants to present bank records from a phone to prove they had paid rent, while relying on the landlord's uncorroborated testimony.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached procedural fairness by denying the tenants an opportunity to present their evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

Forest Grove Homes Limited appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering Tarion Warranty Corporation to repair three Ontario Building Code violations related to the roof of a new home owned by Elaine Ducas.

Ducas cross-appealed, seeking an order requiring Tarion to investigate and correct the underlying cause of water penetration, which the Tribunal found was likely ice damming.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the building code violations, and agreeing that the statutory warranty did not require the builder to investigate the cause of the leak absent proof that a design flaw caused the ice damming.

The applicant, a medical student, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Academic Appeals Committee upholding findings of professionalism lapses.

The applicant argued that the initial process before the Board of Examiners was procedurally unfair due to insufficient notice and undisclosed allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the initial process was flawed, the subsequent appeals before the Faculty of Medicine Appeals Committee and the Academic Appeals Committee were conducted as de novo hearings that cured any procedural defects.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was entitled to statutory accident benefits following a motorcycle accident.

The respondent had purchased the motorcycle the day before the accident but had not yet notified the insurer, who insured his other vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a motorcycle is a 'motor vehicle' required to be insured, and therefore an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act.

Consequently, the motorcycle qualified as a 'newly acquired automobile' under section 2.2.1 of the standard Ontario Automobile Policy, which provides automatic coverage for a 14-day grace period regardless of the insurer's internal policy against insuring motorcycles.

The applicant's driving instructor licence was revoked by the Ministry of Transportation after he was criminally charged with sexual assault involving a student.

Despite his subsequent acquittal, the Ministry maintained the revocation and required him to apply for a new licence, which it then denied.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the initial revocation decision was profoundly procedurally unfair as it failed to comply with the notice and response requirements of O. Reg 473/07.

The court further held that the subsequent re-application decision did not cure these defects, as it was irreparably compromised by the flawed revocation and improperly reversed the onus of proof.

The decisions were set aside and the licence was ordered reinstated.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.

The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the claim based on an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to consider whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The parties agreed the order was final.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits and a special award from his insurer.

At first instance, the Licence Appeal Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month and a special award.

On reconsideration, the LAT varied the decision, finding the initial adjudicator erred by not applying the mandatory maximum hourly rates for attendant care and by misapplying the test for a special award.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the reconsideration adjudicator made no errors of law in applying the statutory hourly rate caps or in setting aside the special award based on the established legal test.

The parties settled an appeal, agreeing that costs would be agreed to or assessed.

No agreement was reached.

The respondent on the appeal asked the court to fix and award the costs of the appeal, while the appellants requested a referral to an assessment officer.

The Divisional Court held that the matter was not complex and retained its discretion to fix costs.

The court awarded the respondent $5,820.63 for the appeal and $3,000 for the appearance.

Three appeals were heard together to determine whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for filing appeals set out in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court held that s. 7 does grant the LAT jurisdiction to extend the s. 56 limitation period, as the time limit is fixed 'under an Act' (the Insurance Act).

The Court dismissed the insurers' appeals challenging the LAT's jurisdiction and its exercise of discretion to grant extensions, finding no errors of law.

In the third appeal, where the adjudicator had found no jurisdiction, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the LAT to consider the extension request.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision determining he was not entitled to severance pay under s. 64 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board had concluded that the employer's payroll calculation for the $2.5 million threshold was restricted to its Ontario payroll, excluding its global payroll.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation unreasonable, holding that the calculation of payroll under s. 64 is not restricted to Ontario employment and must include global payroll.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their complaint regarding a failure to provide sign language interpretation during a private prosecution.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal against the private prosecutor and the individual who laid the information, finding they did not provide a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Court also dismissed the application against the Justices of the Peace due to judicial immunity.

However, the Court found the Tribunal's dismissal of the complaint against the Ministry of the Attorney General was unreasonable, as the Tribunal ignored explicit allegations that requests for interpretation were made to the court clerk.

The matter against the Ministry was remitted to the Tribunal.

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs of $34,377.28 on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a settlement offer.

The appellant argued he was a public interest litigant and that no costs should be ordered.

The Divisional Court found the appellant did not demonstrate he was a public interest litigant and held that costs should follow the event.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Rule 49 did not apply, and instead awarded the respondent costs of $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding it had discriminated against a job applicant on the basis of citizenship.

The employer had rescinded a job offer after discovering the applicant, an international student, lied about being eligible to work permanently in Canada.

The Divisional Court quashed the HRTO's decision, holding that it was unreasonable to conflate 'permanent residence' with 'citizenship' to find direct discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The court found that permanent residency is a separate status from citizenship, and the HRTO's expansion of the protected ground was not justified.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the order of Glustein J. dated September 9, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $10,000.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's preliminary award regarding jurisdiction over a workplace grievance.

The union argued the application was premature as the arbitration was not yet complete.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative process, and dismissed the application as premature.