Abba Emmanuel Chima

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to summarily dismiss her human rights complaint.

The Tribunal had concluded that earlier incidents were out of time and not part of a series of incidents, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the timely allegations.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent employer.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had failed to exercise his statutory right to appeal under s. 31(1) of the ODSPA, which constituted an adequate alternative remedy.

The applicant failed to identify any exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the statutory appeal process to pursue judicial review.

Following a family law motion concerning support and s. 7 expenses, the court addressed costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party had partial success on the underlying motion but failed to obtain the full relief sought, and the record disclosed disclosure deficiencies and inconsistent financial materials filed by that party.

The opposing party’s cross‑motion to strike pleadings lacked merit, though a disclosure request was granted.

Considering the conduct of the parties, settlement offers, proportionality, and the modest complexity of the motion, the court reduced the costs sought and ordered the opposing party to pay a reduced amount.

The court declined to order the costs to be enforceable as child support.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a default judgment, arguing that the motion judge displayed a reasonable apprehension of bias through his comments during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the transcript and found that while the motion judge used colourful language, his comments did not demonstrate bias or prejudgment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no material errors and that the findings of fact were supported by the record.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that set aside a judgment obtained after the defendants failed to attend trial.

The plaintiffs argued there was a conflicting decision and good reason to doubt the correctness of the order under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 52.01(3) to set aside the judgment on terms, and there was no conflicting decision or reason to doubt the order's correctness.