Alexander D. Kurke

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 3, 2019.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order denying summary judgment.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the dispute resolution clause (GC8) in the contract between the parties extinguished the responding party's right to bring a court action.

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

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Emery J. dated January 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 15, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to a 15-month delay.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by imposing page limits, was biased, rendered an unreasonable decision, and violated his s. 15 Charter rights by applying a presumption of prejudice for delayed complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedural directions fair, the delay analysis reasonable, and the Charter claim unfounded as the presumption applies equally to all parties and does not discriminate on analogous grounds.

The moving defendants in a medical malpractice action sought an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce child welfare files from the Children's Aid Society and Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, arguing the plaintiffs undertook to produce them at discovery.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing the undertakings were subject to relevance and privilege, and that the files were highly sensitive and irrelevant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the undertakings were qualified and that production of the entire child welfare files was disproportionate and highly prejudicial given the speculative relevance to the damages claims.

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that stayed her application for statutory accident benefits until she consented to the release of insurer's examination reports.

The applicant had revoked her consent, arguing that the involvement of a third-party vendor compromised the independence of the assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative processes until they are completed.

The court found no exceptional circumstances, noting that issues regarding the independence of medical assessments should be raised before the ultimate trier of fact.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gauthier J. dated December 16, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Jarvis J. dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Kurz J. dated December 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,150 to the respondent.

The moving parties, acting personally and as estate trustees, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sheard J. dated December 21, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's final order asserting jurisdiction over the parties' fourth child under the Divorce Act.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its own jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court concluded that because the order appealed from was made under the federal Divorce Act, rather than an Ontario statute, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, not the Divisional Court.

Applying the Dunnington test, the court declined to dismiss the appeal and instead transferred it to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a final order regarding retroactive child support and section 7 expenses.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the parties' daughter remained a 'child of the marriage' while attending college and that the respondent was entitled to retroactive child support.

However, the court found the motion judge failed to adequately analyze the section 7 expenses under the Child Support Guidelines.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the issue of section 7 arrears was remitted to the motion judge for reconsideration.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and assault arising from a long-term pattern of exploitation and abuse that began when the complainant was a teenage athlete and the offender was her coach.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as predominant, relying on the modern sentencing approach for sexual offences against children and recognizing the aggravating features of breach of trust, exploitation, domestic violence, humiliation, and lasting psychological harm.

The court also considered mitigating factors including the offender's youth at the time of the sexual assault, lengthy law-abiding period, harsh extrajudicial consequences, and extended bail period.

A global custodial sentence of 45 months was imposed, together with mandatory and ancillary orders.

The moving party sought to enforce an unsigned settlement agreement arising from a dispute over the validity of competing wills.

The moving party argued that an agreement on the essential terms had been reached through correspondence between counsel.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing that counteroffers were still being made and no final agreement was reached.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was no meeting of the minds on all essential terms and that the responding parties never agreed to the terms in the draft minutes of settlement.

The applicant, charged with historical sexual offences against his daughter, applied for certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry.

He argued there was no evidence proving he was the person who committed the offences.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the identity of the name on the information and the name testified to by the complainant constituted sufficient evidence for committal.

Furthermore, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant certiorari because defence counsel had tactically failed to raise the identification issue or file a mandatory statement of issues at the preliminary inquiry.

The applicant, a designated manager of a pharmacy, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

Following a dispensing error where a pediatric patient received the wrong medication, the ICRC ordered the applicant to receive an oral caution and complete a remedial course on root cause analysis.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable given the applicant's responsibility for pharmacy policies.

The moving parties, SP Plus Corporation Canada and Haws Overhead Doors Ltd. and Haws Door & Hardware Ltd., brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Emery J. dated February 24, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $4,000, payable equally by the moving parties.

The appellant, acting as Estate Trustee for a deceased tenant, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim against the respondents for allegedly withholding the deceased's property.

The deputy judge had dismissed the claim on the basis that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the dispute arose from a mediated agreement under the Residential Tenancies Act regarding the preservation of a deceased tenant's property, and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.