Thomas R. Lederer

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that resulted in her eviction for rent arrears.

The eviction was executed by the Sheriff before a stay was in place, and the landlord subsequently re-rented the unit to a new tenant.

The Divisional Court held that it could not restore the tenant to the unit or order the landlord to provide a different unit.

The court also dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding multiplicity of proceedings, issue estoppel, loss of jurisdiction, and procedural fairness, finding that the LTB's distinct processes for persistent late payment and non-payment of rent were appropriate and fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation against a property owned by the respondents.

The appellant had sued one of the respondents for defective construction work and alleged that the subsequent sale of the respondent's home to his daughter and son-in-law was a fraudulent conveyance.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge erred in law on the second branch of the test for issuing a CPL, she made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a forensic pathologist, sought judicial review of a reporting letter issued by the Death Investigation Oversight Council regarding her complaint against the Chief Forensic Pathologist.

The applicant alleged that the Chief Forensic Pathologist abused his authority by interfering with her conclusion that a child's death was due to natural causes rather than abuse.

The Council investigated and issued recommendations to improve the death investigation system but did not recommend the Chief Forensic Pathologist's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council is an advisory body, not a disciplinary tribunal, and its decision not to make findings of fact or recommend dismissal was reasonable.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application, the court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the respondent's partial indemnity costs.

On consent of the parties, costs were fixed at $30,000, payable by the applicant.

The appellant was seriously injured when a dog knocked her down at an off-leash park.

She sued the dog owner, who failed to defend the action.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion for default judgment, finding the dog merely 'ran into' her, which did not constitute an 'attack' under the Dog Owner's Liability Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by requiring proof of the dog's intent to injure, failing to consider the deemed admissions in the statement of claim, capping non-pecuniary damages for dog injuries, and improperly deducting private disability insurance benefits from the lost income claim.

The matter was remitted for a new default judgment hearing.

The employer and seven employees sought judicial review of two decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board: a decision certifying the union as the bargaining agent for a unit of carpenters, and a decision dismissing requests for reconsideration.

The applicants argued the decisions were procedurally unfair because they were made without a hearing, and unreasonable because the Board failed to properly consider allegations that the union organizer used misrepresentation to obtain signed membership cards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's specialized procedures permitted it to decide the matter without a hearing, and that its decisions were rational, logical, and tenable based on the evidence and submissions.

The tenants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to order a de novo hearing of their eviction applications.

The original LTB member had already conducted a consolidated hearing and determined that the landlord breached s. 83(3)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act by treating tenant union members differently during rent arrears negotiations.

The only remaining issue was identifying which specific tenants had made repayment proposals.

Before making this final factual determination, the member resigned.

The LTB subsequently ordered a de novo hearing without consulting the parties.

The Divisional Court held that ordering a de novo hearing in these circumstances, where the substantive legal issues had already been comprehensively decided, was a denial of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was granted, the original decision was reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the LTB solely to determine which tenants made repayment proposals.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to maintain the standard of practice by treating cancer patients with unproven complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, failing to obtain informed consent, and improperly billing OHIP for palliative care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the Tribunal's factual findings were well-supported by the evidence.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $3,300.

The self-represented defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Conway J. dated December 7, 2022.

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

The appellant, the Municipality of Chatham Kent, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Aston J. dated November 14, 2022.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Conway J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties failed to file a costs outline.

The applicant brought a motion for an adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment request and imposed a timetable agreed upon by the parties.

Due to the inordinate delay in the case and the reasons for it, the court declined to award costs to any party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assessment Review Board dismissing her application for property tax relief based on sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant sought relief for the 2015 and 2017 taxation years, as well as a refund for all years from 2011 to the present.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board correctly limited its jurisdiction to the years applied for and reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay, as the taxes had already been paid by her lawyers.

The court also rejected arguments of procedural unfairness and failure to accommodate.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision but failed to pay rent or rental arrears since October 2022, despite an undertaking to bring arrears up to date.

The tenant claimed inability to pay due to a slip and fall on the landlord's property.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable excuse for the failure to pay rent and dismissed the appeal as abandoned, awarding $5,000 in costs to the respondent landlord.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a renewal collective agreement for employees of a long-term care home.

The union argued that the wage adjustments awarded were unreasonable and that the arbitration board failed to provide adequate reasons, placed too much reliance on a master agreement, and failed to properly apply the statutory criteria under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was reasonable, adequately explained, and fell within the range of acceptable outcomes given the legislative nature of interest arbitration and the deference owed to such awards.

The appellant tenant, who suffers from a mental health disability, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her due to disruptive and threatening behaviour towards other tenants.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly consider the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability under the Human Rights Code, failed to consider relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and denied her procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly determined that accommodating the tenant caused undue hardship to the landlord and other tenants, properly exercised its discretion regarding relief from eviction, and appropriately admitted and weighed hearsay evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal council decision upholding a repair order issued against her for dumping sand on her shoreline property in contravention of a site alteration by-law.

The applicant argued that the alterations were historical, fell under provincial jurisdiction, and that the council breached procedural fairness by not providing written reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Township had concurrent jurisdiction, the decision was reasonable based on the evidence of by-law contravention, and the council's process met the requirements of procedural fairness for an administrative municipal decision.

The plaintiff, a federal penitentiary warden, commenced a civil action against a subordinate employee for defamation and harassment.

The defendant moved to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under section 236 of the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act because the matter was a workplace dispute subject to the statutory grievance process.

The motion judge allowed the action to proceed against the individual defendant and added the Attorney General as a party.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the decision, holding that the broad scope of the grievance process ousted the court's jurisdiction over both the Crown and the individual employee.

The appeal was granted and the action dismissed.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a finding of professional misconduct for failing to reply promptly and completely to Law Society communications.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, received ineffective assistance from duty counsel, and that the adjudicator made improper credibility findings and misapplied the test for misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual and credibility findings, and concluding that the appellant had waived any procedural fairness concerns by electing to proceed with the hearing rather than seeking an adjournment.