|
Appeals - Practice (2). Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario []
In Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an RHPA appeal, this brought against "the decision of a Committee of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons" finding that the appellant "committed professional misconduct (the “Merits Decisions”), and the Committee decision ... revoking Dr Bacchus’ license and ordering him to pay costs of $451,461.61 (among other orders) (the “Penalty Decision”).".
Here the court limits itself on appellate review to only "facts as found by the Committee", expressly holding that "(t)his court does not immerse itself in the record below and decide what findings it would make if it was hearing the case at first instance" (note this is an appeal, not a JR).
While it's true that the SOR for appeals from a Tribunal is the standard appellate SOR ['correctness' for legal issues, 'palpable and overriding error' for errors of fact and errors of mixed fact and law], IMHO
this approach (below) runs perilously close to unduly minimizing the appellant's submissions. Why else do the court Rules call for appeal and exhibit books but for their use in argument, to which facta are integral? Perhaps this a case of poorly-referenced factum argument, but if so the approach taken here strikes me as extreme - particularly in a self-presenting appellant as here.:[7] In his factum, the Appellant sets out an account of the facts that are not referenced to the Committee’s decision (Factum, paras. 12-25). This is an error on an appeal. The facts in this court are the facts as found by the Committee. Where a party submits that a tribunal made palpable and overriding errors of fact, the starting place for analysis is the facts, as found by the tribunal, and then submissions may be made as to why particular findings are palpable and overriding errors. It is improper to argue a version of the facts untied to the findings below: an appeal in this court is not a “re-do” of the hearing below. This court does not immerse itself in the record below and decide what findings it would make if it was hearing the case at first instance. See: Feng v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2025 ONSC 2268, para. 12 (Div. Ct.); H.H. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, para. 4; Sayers Foods Ltd. v. Gay Company Ltd., 2026 ONSC 918, para. 34 (Div. Ct.). . Nieman v. 15272122 Canada Inc.
In Nieman v. 15272122 Canada Inc. (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court granted a landlord motion to lift an automatic Registrar's RTA stay [under R63.01(5)].
Here the court illustrates a common request by counsel where the other side is self-presenting, that of seeking to dispense with consent as to the form of the order (ie. dispensing with the need for what is called 'settling the order'):[21] I also dispense with the appellants’ approval as to the form and content of the order. . Libfeld v. Libfeld
In Libfeld v. Libfeld (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal granted a motion to quash an appeal, this on appeal route final-v-interlocutory grounds.
The court illustrates another practical appeal practice, here where an appeal route is uncertain: a 'precautionary appeal':[54] For the above reasons, I find that the Raki Order is interlocutory and should be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave. I am also persuaded that the Raki Order was made under the OBCA and would thus in any event be appealable to the Divisional Court under s. 255 of the OBCA.
[55] As a result, the motions to quash are granted.
[56] In conjunction with their attempts to appeal to this court, both Mark and Corey commenced “precautionary” appeals to the Divisional Court. Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider whether the appeal should be transferred to the Divisional Court. . Chad v. Canada
In Chad v. Canada (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an income tax appeal, here brought against a Tax Court confirmation of a Minister’s reassessment - and this wrt a finding "that the appellant undertook that activity in pursuit of loss, not profit", and thus could not claim a loss deduction.
Here the court seems at least sensitive to issues included in the factum, but not argued orally:[9] I turn now to address the appellant’s submissions and my reasons for rejecting them. While I considered all the arguments in the appellant’s memorandum of fact and law, I find those not addressed at the hearing of the appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, in these reasons I focus on the submissions made at the hearing. . Park et al v. Anelli
In Park et al v. Anelli (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a landlord's RTA s.210 appeal, here brought against an LTB order that "found they collected and retained money in contravention of the Residential Tenancies Act".
Here the court illustrates the frequent practice of the appeal courts to disregard a party's written factum argument when they are not relied on in oral argument:[17] The landlords addressed other issues in their factum that they did not raise in their oral submissions. They allege, for example, that the Board did not address material documentary evidence. I have already addressed the landlords’ primary contention, which is that the Board did not expressly discuss the impact of the settlement on the $4900 payment. Beyond that, the Board is not required to expressly address every piece of evidence put before it. Its failure to do so is not an error of law. Similarly, to the extent the landlords disagree with the Board’s weighing of or assessment of the evidence, these are factual issues that do not raise errors of law.
[18] In their written material, the landlords also counter various arguments they say the tenant raised at the Board hearing. The Board did not rely on those arguments and they therefore are not relevant and need not be addressed on appeal.
|
