Valerie Cohl Crystal

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.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of decisions made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the case conference, the moving party advised she would proceed by appeal if the respondents did not oppose an extension of time and if the judicial review application could be held in abeyance pending the outcome of her appeal and the Court of Appeal's decision in Yatar.

The respondents did not oppose the extension.

The court granted the extension of time to file the notice of appeal and ordered the judicial review application to be held in abeyance.

The applicant police officer sought a stay of his dismissal from the police service pending judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision that confirmed his termination for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm did not favor the applicant.

The court noted that the applicant's losses were primarily financial and could be remedied with back pay if his judicial review application succeeded, whereas granting routine stays would contravene legislative policy.

The appellant, an environmental clean-up worker, suffered impairments from toxic exposure while cleaning up a chemical spill caused by a fatal collision between two trucks.

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 SABS.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that while the use of the vac-truck met the purpose test, it did not meet the causation test as the toxic substances, not the vehicle, directly caused the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT made no errors of law in its articulation or application of the purpose and modified causation tests.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The respondent did not oppose the motion.

The court noted that the proper procedure for challenging the tribunal's decisions on a question of law is by way of statutory appeal, and judicial review on questions of mixed fact and law is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

The moving party requested more time to decide how to proceed, and the motion was adjourned to a case conference.

Forest Grove Homes Limited appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering Tarion Warranty Corporation to repair three Ontario Building Code violations related to the roof of a new home owned by Elaine Ducas.

Ducas cross-appealed, seeking an order requiring Tarion to investigate and correct the underlying cause of water penetration, which the Tribunal found was likely ice damming.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the building code violations, and agreeing that the statutory warranty did not require the builder to investigate the cause of the leak absent proof that a design flaw caused the ice damming.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision barring him from proceeding with an appeal for catastrophic injury benefits due to his failure to attend an insurer's medical examination and provide documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The court held that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify bypassing the statutory appeal process in favour of judicial review.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits and a special award from his insurer.

At first instance, the Licence Appeal Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month and a special award.

On reconsideration, the LAT varied the decision, finding the initial adjudicator erred by not applying the mandatory maximum hourly rates for attendant care and by misapplying the test for a special award.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the reconsideration adjudicator made no errors of law in applying the statutory hourly rate caps or in setting aside the special award based on the established legal test.

The Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission directing the Chief of Police to withdraw disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The Commission found that the Chief failed to comply with the mandatory investigation and reporting requirements under section 76 of the Police Services Act before initiating a disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission did not breach procedural fairness, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Commission's decision was reasonable.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision requiring it to fund the respondent's catastrophic impairment (CAT) assessment under s. 25(1)5 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued it was only required to pay for an assessment completed before the insured submitted their application.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding that the preparation of an application does not cease once the formal document is submitted, and the insurer must fund any assessment necessary for determining whether the impairment is catastrophic.