Thomas R. Lederer

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to terminate a tenancy for its own use under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Board had ruled that a large corporation could not claim 'own use' of a rental unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a corporation can occupy a rental unit through its employees or agents, such as a live-in superintendent, to fulfill its statutory duties.

The Court set aside the Board's orders and granted vacant possession to the appellant.

The appellant appealed an order requiring the defendants' lawyers to pay a costs award to his former solicitor, Mr. Khan, and creating a solicitor's lien.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant was not properly served with the motion, there was no joint application for approval of the contingency fee agreement as required by the Solicitors Act, and the appellant had no opportunity to address the issues at the hearing.

The order was set aside, the lien discharged, and costs awarded to the appellant.

The Bank of Montreal sought leave to appeal a decision certifying two related class actions arising from a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by a bank customer.

The Bank argued that the motions judge erred in finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in knowing assistance and negligence, relying on section 437 of the Bank Act and the Anns test for duty of care.

The Bank also challenged the finding that the claims raised common issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusions that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail and that there was some basis in fact for the common issues.

The defendant Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action alleged that the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) was negligent and breached a fiduciary duty by reinstating a defaulting payor's passport, allowing him to leave the country and evade support arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that whether FRO owed a duty of care or a fiduciary duty to the support recipients were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the appellant not to carry out a proposal to suspend the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and its salespersons.

The appellant argued the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable given the dealership's failure to provide adequate financial records and a salesperson's breach of registration conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the correct legal principles and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence, including expert accounting testimony that the dealership could reasonably be expected to carry on business in a financially responsible manner.

A non-party sought leave to appeal an order requiring production of decades of corporate financial statements in connection with a summary judgment motion.

The order, originally made by a master and upheld on appeal, required production of financial statements of a pharmaceutical company alleged to be carrying on the business of a predecessor company whose sale generated royalty and option agreements benefiting the plaintiffs.

The moving party argued that conflicting decisions existed and that the order was incorrect because the documents were irrelevant, disproportionate, and improperly required disclosure from a non-party.

The court held that the alleged conflicting decisions involved different procedural stages and discretionary contexts, and therefore did not conflict in principle.

It further found the financial statements had a semblance of relevance to issues of liability, including whether the successor company continued the predecessor’s business.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The defendant dentist sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his motion for summary judgment, which was based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiff argued that although he initially discovered the claim for dental malpractice, the defendant's subsequent assurances that the work was competent and the problems were due to poor hygiene negated that discovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that a trial was necessary to fully appreciate whether the defendant's actions delayed the commencement of the limitation period.

The applicant sought costs following a successful application to enforce a New York judgment in Ontario concerning the sale of a painting.

The court had previously permitted enforcement of the foreign judgment but stayed execution pending the outcome of an appeal in New York.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the respondent had repeatedly attempted to relitigate issues already decided and had engaged in delay tactics through multiple proceedings and appeals.

The court agreed that the respondent’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs but reduced the amount claimed due to concerns about the involvement of multiple senior counsel.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $94,298.28 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal filed by the appellants.

The appellants had previously been found to have perpetrated a fraud on investors and were ordered to pay investigation and hearing costs, which remained unpaid.

The court found good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the appellants had declined to participate in the merits hearing.

Furthermore, the court found the appellants no longer had assets in Ontario.

The motion was granted, and the appellants were ordered to post $20,000 as security for costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application, which alleged that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit discriminated on the basis of marital and family status.

The Tribunal had found it lacked jurisdiction because the benefit was an integral part of taxation and thus excluded from the definition of 'services' under section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Tribunal's reconsideration process and concluding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the Code was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a contract for the supply and installation of doors and windows.

The appellant had refused to pay the balance owing, claiming the products were not Energy Star rated and that damage was caused during installation.

The deputy judge awarded the respondent the balance owing but set off an amount for damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the deputy judge's factual findings that the products were Energy Star rated, despite missing stickers, and that the damages awarded were appropriate.

Following a motion concerning whether a statement of claim should be amended to replace John Doe defendants with identified individuals, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs of over $64,000 after achieving partial success in adding several individuals as defendants.

The responding parties argued that costs should be reduced because success was divided and because significant work occurred before the individuals formally opposed the motion.

The court rejected arguments that costs should be apportioned based on the number of individuals added and accepted that earlier work was intertwined with the amendment issue.

However, the court reduced the requested amount to account for delay and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of a bank’s summary judgment motion in an action alleging breach of trust and negligence, the plaintiffs and a co-defendant sought costs.

The court considered Rule 49 settlement offers but found they did not promote compromise, as they effectively required the moving party to abandon its motion.

Although the bank succeeded on the legal issue that no trust existed, a negligence issue remained requiring trial.

Given the bank’s unsuccessful motion and the limited value of the underlying claim, the court found the motion unnecessary and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs and $15,000 to the co-defendant.

The appellant grandmother appealed a summary judgment order finding her grandson to be a child in need of protection and making him a Crown ward with no access.

The grandmother argued the motions judge erred in applying the summary judgment test and assessing credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test and did not improperly weigh evidence or assess credibility, as the material issue was the undisputed lack of a relationship between the grandmother and the child.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed a decision by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to take no further action regarding her complaints against two doctors.

The complaints related to a spinal anaesthetic administered in 1994 and subsequent care.

The Divisional Court found HPARB's decision reasonable, noting that the investigation was adequate and the treatment provided was within professional expectations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review for delay.

The applicant sought to review a decision from December 2000, having applied for reconsideration six times until November 2007, and commenced the judicial review in January 2011.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for delay and granted the motion, finding extreme delay, a vague explanation, and real possibility of prejudice to the Tribunal's process.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its application for judicial review to develop new evidence.

The Divisional Court addressed preliminary issues and exercised its discretion under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to decline to hear the application.

The court found the matter was not a review of a quasi-judicial decision, primarily concerned commercial interests, would require the court to perform a trial function, and that the applicant lacked standing.

The application was quashed without a determination on the merits.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent $45,000 plus costs.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, relying on defences of gratuitous bailment and ex turpi causa.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the full appreciation test from Combined Air.

The motions judge was entitled to evaluate credibility under Rule 20.04(2.1) and properly concluded the appellant's evidence was unbelievable and full of contradictions.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict and a trial judge's ruling on a threshold motion following a motor vehicle accident.

The jury found the appellant 10% liable and awarded $4,000, which was reduced to zero due to income replacement benefits.

The trial judge dismissed the claim for non-pecuniary damages, finding the appellant did not sustain a permanent serious impairment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial accommodations, evidentiary rulings, the threshold decision, the jury charge, the verdict, and alleged trial judge bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's rulings and ample evidence to support the jury's verdict.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's implementation of smart metering for electricity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act in concluding that the landlord was entitled to increase rent for adding electricity as a prescribed service and that payments to an independent contractor were not illegal charges.

The court also held that the Board's findings on harassment and coercion were factual and raised no question of law.