Adriana Doyle

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the calculation of relief letter carrier complements under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that absences of relief letter carriers temporarily filling long-term vacancies must be included in the bar chart review process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and prior binding awards was reasonable and made labour relations sense.

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife's motion for partition and sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The husband argued the parties had reached a binding agreement for him to buy out the wife's interest.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no meeting of the minds, as the husband's acceptance did not include the wife's requirement for a spousal support release.

The Court also found no error in the order for partition and sale under the Partition Act, noting no malicious or oppressive conduct by the wife.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council dismissing his complaint against a justice of the peace who convicted him of a red-light camera offence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council's investigation was procedurally fair and its decision reasonable.

The court noted that the applicant's complaints primarily concerned judicial decision-making, which falls outside the Council's jurisdiction, and that the transcript showed the justice of the peace treated the applicant fairly.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Connell J. dated July 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party, the Corporation of the County of Renfrew, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of MacLeod R.S.J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs submissions, no costs were awarded.

The defendants, a municipality and its councillors, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of defamation and misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiffs, owners of a local newspaper, alleged the defendants targeted them for their investigative journalism.

The court struck portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits for containing improper argument and opinion.

However, the court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the plaintiffs' claims had substantial merit, the defendants' defences were not guaranteed to succeed, and the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized from her residence during the execution of a search warrant targeting her partner.

The accused argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) relied on confidential informants and lacked sufficient detail and corroboration to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the ITO was deficient, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and ordered the evidence excluded.

The plaintiff was successful on a motion for a status hearing and successfully defended the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff sought costs of $36,301.47 on a substantial indemnity basis or $20,220.19 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award costs to the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff had required an indulgence from the court to proceed with the action due to delay, and had improperly set the matter down for trial without a status hearing.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed professional misconduct by improperly billing OHIP and falsifying patient records, and revoked his certificate of registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the Committee's liability decision.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, concluding it was not clearly unfit given the intentional and dishonest nature of the misconduct and the appellant's lack of insight.

Sentencing decision arising from convictions for historical domestic violence offences against two former intimate partners, including indecent assault, sexual assault, common assaults, and pointing a firearm.

The court emphasized proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, statutory aggravating factors for intimate partner abuse and abuse of trust, and the significant impact of the offences on the victims.

While the offender's advanced age, frailty, multiple medical conditions, lack of prior record, and the pandemic were treated as collateral consequences warranting some moderation, the court held that a substantial penitentiary term remained necessary.

A global sentence of 43 months less 71 days' credit was imposed, together with DNA, firearms, sex offender registry, and no-contact orders.

The plaintiff, a creditor of a bankrupt lawyer, sought to proceed with an action to collect a debt allegedly owed by the defendant, a former client of the lawyer.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action for delay, citing the 11.5 years since the action commenced.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate, it was excusable due to the lawyer's bankruptcy and the time required for the plaintiff to obtain a section 38 order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court also found no substantial risk to a fair trial, as relevant documents and witnesses were available.

The defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the action was allowed to proceed.

The accused, a professional truck driver, was charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm following a multi-vehicle collision on Highway 401.

The accused's tractor trailer collided with stopped or slowed traffic at 104 km/h without braking until a fraction of a second before impact.

The court found that the accused failed to respond to visual cues, including flashing lights and brake lights, which constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, particularly a professional driver.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellants, who own taxicab licences in Toronto, sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto for economic losses allegedly caused by the City's failure to enforce its by-laws against Uber and other private transportation companies.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the City did not owe the appellants a private law duty of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the City's regulatory role and its interactions with the appellants did not create a relationship of proximity, and that policy reasons regarding indeterminate liability negated any prima facie duty of care.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the March 2, 2021 decision of McEwan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs in the amount of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The respondent estate brought a motion on the first day of trial to amend its Answer to include the equitable defence of laches against the applicant's claim to set aside a marriage contract.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that laches is not a legally tenable defence to a statutory claim under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act and that the amendment would cause uncompensable prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that a claim for declaratory relief under section 56(4) is equitable in nature and can be defended by laches.

The court also found that any disadvantage to the applicant could be compensated by costs, an adjournment, or trial management.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

The joint submission proposed a two-month suspension to be served over the summer months for harassing conduct toward a teaching candidate.

The Committee rejected the summer timing, ordering the suspension to start in September.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee erred by misapplying the stringent public interest test from Anthony-Cook.

The Committee impermissibly substituted its own view of a fit penalty without demonstrating that the joint submission was so unhinged from the circumstances that its acceptance would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary an interim parenting order, seeking supervised access for the respondent father and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The father brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging the mother denied him access, and sought the sale of the family home.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's aggressive behaviour and substance abuse issues, which caused the children emotional harm.

The court varied the interim order to reduce the father's parenting time to daytime only, supervised by his parents.

The court dismissed the father's contempt motion, finding that while the mother technically breached the order, she did so to protect the children from family violence.

The court also ordered the sale of the family home, child support, and requested OCL involvement.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the February 12, 2021 decision of McEwen J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondents.