Valerie Cohl Crystal

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 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 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 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.

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed an Assessment Review Board decision classifying its property as Multi-Residential rather than Residential.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by focusing exclusively on the physical layout of the suites rather than the occupancy arrangements to determine if they were 'self-contained units'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly considered both the physical layout and the occupancy arrangements, and that the Board's application of these factors was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appellate review.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating a tenancy but denying jurisdiction to award compensation under an L3 application.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to award compensation on an L3 application, which is strictly for termination.

However, the Court found a breach of procedural fairness because the LTB member determined the termination date without allowing the landlord to make submissions on that issue.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the specific termination date, while the jurisdiction appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to order his return to a rental unit after he was evicted.

The landlord had obtained an eviction order claiming her disabled son needed the unit, but the tenant was not notified of the hearing.

The Board later granted a review but refused to reinstate the tenant based on the landlord's unsworn statement that her son was occupying the unit.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence showing the landlord had actually re-rented the unit to a third party at a higher rent.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by relying on unsworn, false statements.

The Court ordered the tenant immediately reinstated to the unit and remitted the issue of further remedies for the landlord's abuse of process back to the Board.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use, arguing the application was retaliatory and in bad faith under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the documents were available before the hearing and were an attempt to reargue facts.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenants' arguments regarding retaliation, the landlord's conduct, and procedural fairness were essentially challenges to the LTB's factual findings, which do not constitute extricable errors of law.

The landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant for seriously impairing safety by covering smoke detectors.

The LTB issued an eviction order following a hearing the tenant did not attend.

The tenant's request for review was dismissed.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, it was revealed that the LTB had no record confirming service of the Notice of Hearing on the parties.

The court found the tenant was denied procedural fairness, allowed the appeal, and set aside the eviction order.

Given the tenant's failure to pay rent since 2019, the court directed the LTB to hold an expedited consolidated hearing for all pending applications between the parties.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision refusing to extend the limitation period for her claim for non-earner benefits.

The LAT Act limits appeals to questions of law, but the applicant sought judicial review on issues of mixed fact and law regarding her mental capacity.

Applying the framework from Yatar, the Divisional Court declined to hear the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review where the legislature intended to limit recourse to the courts.