Valerie Cohl Crystal

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.

The appellant sought to appeal and judicially review a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision which found her claims for statutory accident benefits were statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the statutory appeal, finding that the LAT's determination of whether the insurer's denial letter was clear and unequivocal was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, holding that judicial review of a LAT decision on statutory accident benefits is only available in exceptional circumstances, given the legislative intent to limit appeals to questions of law.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her family following an altercation with the building superintendent over a clogged sink.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board made several errors of law.

Specifically, the Board failed to consider whether the tenant 'permitted' the illegal act (spitting) under s. 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, improperly speculated about future risk under s. 66(1), and failed to consider all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction under s. 83.

The eviction order was set aside and the landlord's applications were dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the Assessment Review Board's decisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board breached the moving party's procedural fairness rights.

The respondent and the Board took no position on the motion, and no costs were ordered.

The appellants (tenants) appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The LTB ordered eviction based on the tenants' failure to pay their share of utilities, which the LTB found substantially interfered with the landlords' rights.

The tenants argued the eviction was retaliatory because they complained to the municipality about heating issues.

The Divisional Court found the LTB erred in law by failing to consider the tenants' retaliation argument under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act and by failing to consider whether to refuse the eviction on conditions under s. 83(1).

The appeal was granted in part and remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The applicants, foster parents who had cared for a three-year-old child since birth, sought judicial review of a Child and Family Services Review Board decision that overruled the Children's Aid Society's approval of their adoption application.

The Board had directed the child be placed with the respondents, who had previously adopted two of the child's maternal half-siblings, citing the importance of the child's Métis heritage and biological siblings.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable, noting it applied differential standards to the evidence, ignored the child's strong bond with the foster family, and relied on speculation regarding the child's ability to transition to a new home.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the Society's decision approving the applicants' adoption was restored.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding five tortoises, three birds, four lizards, and three dogs removed from their home due to non-compliance with previous orders and to relieve the animals' distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that all the removed animals were in distress at the time of removal due to poor husbandry, lack of water, and unsanitary conditions.

The Board ordered the return of one dog and two budgies, finding the appellants could properly care for them, but declined to return the exotic animals due to the appellants' inability to maintain the required standard of care.

The appellants were also ordered to pay $27,000 for the costs of caring for the animals.

The appellants appealed the removal of two animals from their premises under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Following a case conference, the appellants failed to produce documents, respond to communications from the Board, or appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Board concluded that the appellants did not intend to pursue the appeal and dismissed it as abandoned.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal sought leave to intervene in an appeal launched by Birani Homes Limited against a decision directing Tarion Warranty Corporation to pay $300,000 for home foundation and wall replacement.

Birani opposed the intervention, citing concerns about duplication of submissions, lack of unique expertise, and potential prejudice, particularly regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Tarion consented to the intervention.

The court granted the Tribunal intervenor status, limiting its participation to issues concerning the standard of review, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (ONHWPA) regarding year-end and major structural defect claims, and its Rules of Practice and Procedure on adding parties and disclosure.

Intervention on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias was denied to prevent the Tribunal from appearing to defend its own decision.