Adriana Doyle

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the January 11, 2021 decision of Boswell J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's order requiring the return of the parties' two children to Nigeria and dismissing her motion for temporary custody in Ontario.

The mother had brought the children from Nigeria to Canada without the father's consent.

On appeal, she argued the motion judge erred in finding the children would not suffer serious harm if returned, in failing to give sufficient weight to the children's views, and in proceeding by way of a long motion rather than a trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the mother failed to meet the test under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The record did not establish a probability of serious harm, and the motion judge reasonably concluded a trial was unnecessary.

The plaintiffs brought a multi-faceted motion seeking to dismiss the defendants' anti-SLAPP application, strike affidavits, compel re-attendance for cross-examination, compel answers to undertakings, compel the examination of a witness, and compel document production related to a legal opinion and general inspection.

The court declined to hear the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the anti-SLAPP application, finding it was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel.

The court ordered a witness to re-attend cross-examination, for undertakings to be fulfilled, and for a revised document list to be provided.

The request to examine another witness was adjourned.

The court did not rule on the implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege regarding certain documents due to an insufficient evidentiary record, but allowed the parties to return for a discrete hearing on this issue.

The defendants were reminded to comply with general document disclosure.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 23, 2019 order.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the October 21, 2020 decision of D.L. Edwards J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000 to the moving party in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the November 30, 2020 order of Davies J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as neither party filed a bill of costs.

The appellant mother abducted her children and brought them to Canada in violation of a valid divorce order from Nigeria.

The motion judge ordered the children's return to Nigeria.

The mother appealed the decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and that the evidence fell short of establishing the children would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court ordered the children to be returned within 14 days and awarded costs to the respondent father.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision which found that the respondent's dirt bike was an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act, entitling him to statutory accident benefits.

The respondent was catastrophically injured in a motocross competition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LAT's interpretation that the dirt bike was not exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act because the closed course competition was not sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The court found no error of law in the LAT's application of the Ledcor onus test, the Adams test for automobiles, or its statutory interpretation.

On a statutory appeal from a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision, the insurer challenged a ruling that an injured dirt bike rider was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The court held there was no legal error in allocating onus to the insurer on the narrow exemption issue and no reversible error in applying the Adams framework.

Interpreting s. 2(1)5 of O. Reg. 863 purposively and contextually, the court agreed that motorcycle-association sponsorship applies to both closed course competitions and rallies, so the exemption did not apply on the record.

Although the reconsideration reasons improperly referenced a document outside the hearing record, the court found no procedural unfairness because that reference did not affect the ultimate analysis.

The appeal and the insurer’s fresh-evidence motion were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The applicants, commercial real estate developers, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Council to deny their applications for property tax rebate grants under a community improvement plan by-law.

The applicants argued that because their projects met the threshold eligibility criteria, the City was required to approve the grants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the by-law and governing legislation conferred broad discretion on the Council to consider other factors, including whether the grants were economically necessary for the projects to proceed.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness and awarded costs to the City.

The court heard two openness applications regarding a young child with special needs who was placed for adoption.

The birth father sought monthly in-person contact, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Children's Aid Society supported two visits per year.

The court considered the child's best interests, the need for stability in the adoptive home, and the adoptive parents' ability to comply with the order.

The court ordered a minimum of three in-person openness contacts per year between the child and the birth father, which may include the paternal grandmother.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the injured plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) without the presence of a support person.

The court granted both motions, finding that the pandemic-related delay justified striking the jury notice to ensure timely access to justice, and that the defendants were entitled to an IME without third-party interference absent medical evidence requiring a support person.

The father moved for a stay pending appeal of an order requiring him to provide a notarized copy of his severely autistic child's passport and OHIP card to the mother.

The mother, a Ghanaian diplomat, required the documents to obtain a travel visa to return to Canada and resume equal parenting time.

The court admitted fresh evidence from an immigration lawyer but ultimately dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no irreparable harm to the father and that the balance of convenience and the child's best interests favoured the mother returning to Canada.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of refusing to comply with a roadside screening device demand.

The trial judge had found that the officer's incorrect advice—that a refusal to blow carries the same penalty as a failure—tainted the otherwise valid demand.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that while the initial information was incomplete, the officer subsequently clarified that the respondent would be charged if he refused.

The court concluded the demand was unequivocal and the respondent understood the consequences, entering a conviction.

The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a seven-year-old child, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He sought to overturn a detention order made at his show cause hearing.

The court found that the show cause judge did not err in law or make a clearly inappropriate decision in detaining the applicant on the primary and secondary grounds, given his outstanding charges, history of non-compliance, and concerns regarding the proposed surety.

The application was dismissed and the detention order was upheld.

Historical domestic violence prosecution arising from allegations by two former intimate partners, including indecent assault, sexual assault, assault, and pointing a firearm.

The court applied the W.(D.) credibility framework and carefully distinguished credibility from reliability in assessing evidence concerning events said to have occurred decades earlier.

It held that delayed disclosure did not undermine the complainants’ credibility in relation to the sexual offences and accepted the core evidence on five counts despite memory gaps attributable to the passage of time.

The accused was convicted on counts of indecent assault, assault, pointing a firearm, sexual assault, and assault, but acquitted on one assault count because the evidence concerning the toilet incident was not sufficiently reliable.

The moving party, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal a July 2, 2020 order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The court directed that the questions on appeal would be those set out in the moving party's factum, and fixed costs of the motion at $5,000 to the successful party on the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion and awarded costs of $2,500 to the plaintiff.

The applicant law firm brought a motion for leave to appeal in a matter under the Solicitors Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $1,500.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an alleged historical incident involving a child complainant.

The court reviewed the complainant’s testimony, a prior video statement admitted under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, the evidence of the first disclosure witness, and the accused’s denial under the W.(D.) framework.

While the court rejected the defence evidence on several points, it found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence affecting reliability and credibility on material matters.

Applying the criminal standard of proof and cautioning against myths about delayed disclosure, the court held the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals.