Valerie Cohl Crystal

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 moving parties, who were appealing an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, brought a motion to be referred to by pseudonyms in the court proceeding.

The eviction stemmed from the moving parties' inappropriate conduct toward other tenants regarding COVID-19 vaccinations and masks.

Applying the Sherman Estate framework, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to demonstrate that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest or that the information was so sensitive as to be an affront to dignity.

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, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved driving a police cruiser without a valid license, failing to report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic, and deceiving a supervising officer.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission had properly addressed the applicant's arguments and reasonably upheld both the misconduct findings and the termination of employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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.

The tenant brought a motion for interim relief pending his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenant had been evicted based on the landlord's claim that her son required the unit, but the tenant presented new evidence suggesting the unit was re-rented to a non-family member.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and the Board's jurisdiction.

Balancing the factors, the court granted an interim order prohibiting the landlord from re-renting or changing the current use of the premises by family members until the appeal is heard, and expedited the appeal.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his claim for enhanced attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's findings that the appellant could not claim retroactive benefits without a valid reason for delay and that the definition of 'incurred' under the New Schedule applied procedurally to his claim.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the 2% per month interest rate on overdue benefits under the Old Schedule applied as a substantive benefit, rather than the 1% rate under the New Schedule.

The tenant appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that dismissed her section 82 application as abandoned and ordered her eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued procedural unfairness because the Board proceeded after she left the virtual hearing, and she disputed the rent arrears calculation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's handling of her departure from the hearing, and holding that the rent calculation was a question of fact outside the court's appellate jurisdiction under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her motion to add a request for punitive damages to her application for accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the Tribunal's ruling was not a final decision or order.

The Court emphasized that fragmentation and piecemeal appeals are discouraged in regulatory proceedings, and the appellant must wait until a final decision on the merits before appealing.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that denied her motion to remove the respondent insurer's lawyer for an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The Court held that section 11 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 only permits appeals from final decisions, not interlocutory ones.

In doing so, the Court declined to follow recent Divisional Court decisions that suggested the Court had discretion to hear interlocutory appeals in exceptional circumstances, reaffirming older jurisprudence that statutory appeal rights must be strictly construed.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) which found her accident benefits claim statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed both, stating judicial review was only available in "exceptional circumstances" given the statutory appeal right.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the further appeal, clarifying that while judicial review is always available, it is a discretionary remedy and will only be exercised in rare cases where alternative remedies (like reconsideration and statutory appeal) are inadequate.

The Court affirmed the LAT's finding on the limitation period as reasonable and provided guidance on handling concurrent appeal and judicial review proceedings.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding she was not a tenant and the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply.

She argued the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by refusing to allow her to play audio recordings of a witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's evidentiary ruling was discretionary and not a breach of procedural fairness, as the witness was present at the hearing, gave oral evidence, and was available for cross-examination on any prior inconsistent statements.

The appellant, a taxi driver, was assaulted by a passenger after exiting his vehicle to collect a fare.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding the purpose and causation tests were not met.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues raised were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable errors of law, and the Tribunal made no error in its application of the legal tests.

The tenants appealed from interlocutory orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that their notice of appeal automatically stayed the proceedings, including a review of an eviction order.

The Divisional Court held that section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not confer a right of appeal from an interlocutory order, and therefore the appeal did not stay the proceedings.

The court also found that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness, as they deliberately chose not to attend the review hearing.

The appeals were dismissed.

This endorsement addresses motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the scope of judicial review when a limited statutory right of appeal exists.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to intervene to the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC), finding they offered unique perspectives on the implications of the Divisional Court's decision for other statutory schemes.

The motion for leave to intervene by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) was dismissed as its submissions were largely duplicative of the appellant's and granting a third intervener would be unfair to the respondent.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The LTB order was made on consent, requiring the tenant to vacate the premises and pay rental arrears.

The tenant appealed, arguing procedural fairness issues regarding notice to other alleged tenants, and obtained an automatic stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it was an abuse of process designed to delay eviction while rent remained unpaid.

The court also noted the tenant failed to seek the required leave to appeal a consent order under section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act.