Alexander D. Kurke

On a statutory appeal under the Indian Act, the court held that the Registrar erred in denying registration and band list entry to a claimant seeking relief from historical sex-based discrimination arising from an ancestor's marriage to a non-Indian man before 1951.

The court found palpable and overriding error in the Registrar's refusal to give independent weight to oral family history, in requiring corroboration from sparse official records, and in assessing pieces of evidence in isolation rather than cumulatively.

The court further held that the unknown-ancestor provision in s. 5(6) applied to an ancestor whose name on a baptismal record was effectively indecipherable and historically untraceable.

Drawing reasonable inferences in the claimant's favour from the totality of the historical and genealogical evidence, the court reversed the Registrar and ordered registration and addition to the Wiikwemkoong Band List.

Criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference against two child complainants.

The court carefully distinguished between credibility and reliability, treating peripheral inconsistencies with caution but finding that a major inconsistency in one complainant’s account raised a reasonable doubt on the counts relating to her.

The other complainant’s evidence of repeated vaginal touching over several years by a parent was accepted as credible and reliable despite inconsistencies about dates, locations, and some details, given her age and the repetitive nature of the abuse.

Convictions were entered on the counts relating to repeated vaginal touching, while the remaining counts were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his discrimination application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged his former employer failed to accommodate his workplace knee injury and terminated him.

The HRTO found the applicant had not provided medical evidence or communicated his availability for months, leading the employer to deem his employment abandoned.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, intelligible, and justified based on the record.

The applicant Town sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision finding that a proposed cemetery was in the public interest under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The Tribunal had bifurcated the hearing, leaving the related site plan appeal under the Planning Act to be determined separately.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the Tribunal's process was not complete and that courts should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The self-represented moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Edwards J. dated November 27, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $7,000, payable by the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 12, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Koehnen J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

The court declined the responding party's request to restrict the moving parties from bringing further motions, noting that such a request must be brought by a separate motion under Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure appropriate procedural protections.

Following the breakdown of a common law relationship, the parties disputed entitlement to the proceeds of sale of a custom-built home constructed through a shell corporation on jointly used funds and extensive labour.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust over the parties’ joint RBC and BMO accounts was rebutted, accepted that the applicant had contributed substantial cash and labour, and found that the respondent’s evidence was frequently not credible.

Applying unjust enrichment and joint family venture principles from Kerr, the court concluded that the applicant’s on-site management, labour, and career sacrifice sufficiently offset the respondent’s greater direct monetary contribution.

The respondent’s claims for line of credit interest, occupation rent, and compensation for lost personal property were dismissed.

The trust funds representing the sale proceeds were ordered to be distributed equally.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after fatally stabbing his twin sister's boyfriend in the abdomen following a physical altercation.

The accused claimed self-defence, defence of his sister, and accident, arguing he only intended to intimidate the victim.

The court rejected these defences, finding the accused acted out of anger and vengeance rather than a genuine belief of a threat.

However, considering the accused's youth, intoxication, and extreme anger, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether he possessed the specific intent for murder.

The accused was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder and dangerous operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm.

The court determined as fact that the accused intentionally stabbed the victim in the neck over a drug debt and deliberately drove the victim's vehicle into him.

The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility for the murder, and a concurrent 5-year sentence with a 10-year driving prohibition for the dangerous operation offence.

The appellant appealed her conviction for operating a conveyance with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

She argued that the trial judge erred in finding no breach of her s. 8 Charter right arising from video surveillance of cell toilets during her detention, relying on the principles in R. v. Mok.

The appeal court found that police took reasonable steps to mitigate the privacy intrusion by informing the appellant of the surveillance, offering privacy gowns and blankets, and posting signage.

The court held the application judge did not reverse the burden of proof and correctly found no s. 8 breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

The landlord appealed an LTB decision dismissing his application to evict the tenant and convert the unit to commercial use.

The LTB had found the landlord failed to obtain necessary permits and did not act in good faith, having served the eviction notice the same day the tenant won a previous LTB application declaring the unit residential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LTB's factual finding that the eviction notice was not served in good faith, as it was an attempt to undo the tenant's prior success.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) and that the respondent insurer was not required to assign a claim number.

The appellant's policy with the respondent had lapsed prior to the motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that anyone involved in an accident in Ontario has SABS coverage and that the respondent was required to pay benefits pending a priority dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's interpretation that 'a particular motor vehicle liability policy' refers to a specific policy, not a generic one.

The court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding page limits and adjudicator expertise.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,882.50.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a December 10, 2024 decision of Faieta J. The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal specifically on the issue of the disclosure of counselling and therapy records.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by a Deputy Judge.

The responding party requested that the moving party be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and declined to declare the moving party a vexatious litigant due to a lack of supporting submissions.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Chalmers J. dated July 12, 2024.

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

The applicants sought judicial review and appealed decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC).

The IPC had found that ransomware attacks encrypting the applicants' data containers constituted an unauthorized 'use' and 'loss' of personal information, triggering statutory duties to notify affected individuals under PHIPA and the CYFSA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications and appeal, holding that the IPC's interpretation was reasonable and purposive.

The court found that the encryption of data, which made it temporarily unavailable, amounted to 'handling' or 'dealing with' the information, thereby constituting an unauthorized use that required notification regardless of whether the data was actually viewed or exfiltrated.

A student brought an action against her university alleging negligence, breach of contract, and deceit arising from alleged unfairness in grading and maladministration of two courses and her grade appeals.

The student sought recovery of course costs, punitive damages, deletion of grades, and injunctive relief for policy changes.

The university moved to strike the statement of claim on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over academic decision-making, the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion and struck the claim without leave to amend, finding that the claims were simply indirect attempts to appeal academic decisions and failed to plead the necessary elements of the alleged torts or breach of contract.