Adriana Doyle

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 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 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 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.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a costs order arising from a family law motion regarding school choice.

The court applied the Enbridge test and found that the moving party failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time, did not adequately explain the delay, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court also noted significant prejudice to the responding party.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

The child, who was the subject of a high-conflict custody and child protection dispute, ran away and sought assistance from a legal clinic.

The father obtained an urgent motion order restraining the legal clinic and its lawyer from representing or contacting the child.

The legal clinic and the child appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by conflating a child's right to standing in a proceeding with their fundamental right to seek independent legal advice.

The court held that children are entitled to seek legal advice without permission from their parents or the court.

The court issued a trial management endorsement to address the resumption of a criminal trial that was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused is charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

The court ordered that the balance of the Crown's non-expert witnesses will testify via Zoom, while expert witnesses will testify in person at a later date.

The endorsement sets out detailed procedures for document sharing, witness management, and virtual courtroom etiquette.

The applicant mother sought to suspend or supervise the respondent father's access to their special needs child, Patrick, alleging non-compliance with medical protocols and COVID-19 procedures.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances since a recent trial decision that had thoroughly addressed similar issues and established a gradual access regime.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the previous order and improving parental communication.