Valerie Cohl Crystal

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) moved for an order sealing part of the record in an underlying application for judicial review and preventing further dissemination of the documents.

The documents were found by an adjudicator to be covered by solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant and the affiant opposed the motion.

The court granted the sealing order, finding that the criteria in Sherman Estate were met and that opening the documents to the public before the proceedings were decided would irreparably compromise the privilege and secrecy.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision denying a municipal tax refund for a hotel property that was shut down for construction.

The applicant claimed relief under the demolition and vacant property provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to properly appeal the 2016 demolition decision and that the 2017 claim failed because the demolition occurred in the prior year.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application for a rent increase above the guideline.

The Board dismissed the application after the landlord failed to meet procedural deadlines, finding that the landlord had received the notice of hearing and was the author of its own misfortune.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's determination regarding the receipt of notice was a finding of fact not subject to appeal, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's refusal to extend time or reschedule the hearing.

The tenant sought to appeal an interim review order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) which had granted the landlord's request to review a previous decision dismissing an application to terminate the tenancy for demolition.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the LTB's review decision was an interlocutory order, from which there is no right of appeal.

The tenant failed to respond to the notice within the extended 30-day period.

The court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1 for lack of jurisdiction, noting the tenant could appeal once a final decision is made by the LTB.

The appellant/applicant sought to appeal and judicially review interlocutory decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding the striking out and destruction of certain evidence.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory LAT decision.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review regarding the evidentiary rulings due to prematurity, but permitted the judicial review to proceed regarding the orders requiring the destruction of documents.

The appellant tenant appealed an LTB order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

He argued procedural unfairness because the LTB member had initially dismissed the landlord's application at a hearing scheduled in error, but then reversed the dismissal and rescheduled the hearing.

The tenant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, and the eviction order was made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, as the LTB member was correcting a mistake and the tenant had received notice of the new hearing date.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which had dismissed their motion to disqualify the insurer's counsel and adjuster for alleged conflict of interest and privacy breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review of administrative decisions should not be brought until the tribunal proceedings are complete, and the applicants failed to establish that this was a rare case warranting early intervention.

The moving party, an adjudicative tribunal, brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of one of its own decisions regarding property assessment.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the tribunal lacked a statutory right to appear and its participation threatened tribunal impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, applying the established factors for tribunal intervention.

The court found that the tribunal could provide useful context regarding its statutory and procedural framework without engaging in the merits of the appeal or compromising its impartiality.

The appellant doctor performed a septorhinoplasty on a patient and charged professional and facility fees for the rhinoplasty component, claiming it was uninsured.

The Ministry of Health determined the entire procedure was medically necessary and therefore an insured service, requiring the doctor to reimburse the patient.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board confirmed the Ministry's decision.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding its interpretation of the Schedule of Benefits was correct and its factual determination that the rhinoplasty was medically necessary was reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of interlocutory orders staying their proceedings before the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding catastrophic impairment claims.

The LAT had stayed the proceedings to allow the applicants to attend medical examinations requested by the insurer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications as premature, applying the principle that courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no such exceptional circumstances, even though the applicants raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the LAT's power to issue the stays.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty physical altercation with his estranged wife.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the OCPC reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer properly admitted hearsay evidence, correctly applied the test for discreditable conduct, and imposed a penalty within the appropriate range.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant municipality sought to stay a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) hearing pending a judicial review application.

The municipality argued that the HRTO's administrative delay and the death of its key witness caused irreparable harm, and that the HRTO had refused to hear its motion to stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay application, finding it premature because the HRTO had indicated it would address the motion to stay at the upcoming hearing.

The court reiterated that administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial review is sought.

The moving parties sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision confirming a $1.5 million statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the care of approximately 200 seized dogs.

Without a stay, the dogs would be forfeited to the Crown.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties, as refusing the stay would render related ongoing proceedings moot and destroy their unique herd of dogs.

The motion for a stay pending judicial review was granted.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that time-barred her application for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The LAT found the two-year limitation period expired because the appellant received the denial letter on the day it was written.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the LAT erred in law by making a material finding of fact without evidence and by reversing the onus of proof onto the appellant to show when the letter was received.

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

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 filed a notice of appeal from a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying a request to adjourn a scheduled hearing.

The appellant argued the appeal automatically stayed the LAT proceedings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1, confirming it has no jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals from the LAT.

The court noted the dismissal was without prejudice to an application for judicial review but declined to grant an interim stay of the LAT hearing.

The appellant sought to appeal and judicially review two decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding her application for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The LAT had stayed her application and subsequently dismissed it because she refused to attend a reasonably necessary section 44 psychiatric insurer examination.

The Divisional Court heard the judicial review and appeal concurrently.

The court found the LAT's decisions were reasonable, as the insurer had made efforts to accommodate the appellant's requests for a virtual assessment with a female clinician, but the appellant still refused to attend.

Finding no error of law or breach of procedural fairness, the court dismissed both the appeal and the application for judicial review.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file notices of appeal from two orders that dismissed her previous proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension, including intention to appeal, length of delay, prejudice to the responding parties, and the merits of the appeal.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay, obvious prejudice to the responding parties, and that the proposed appeals were devoid of merit, the court dismissed the motion.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her entitlement to attendant care benefits following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law, and that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, as the case did not present exceptional circumstances.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying him Income Replacement Benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable question of law.

The court held that the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, the correct 'but for' test for causation was applied, and there was no lack of procedural fairness during the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.