Alexander D. Kurke

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

The decision addresses the admissibility of utterances made by the accused, M.D., to police at the time of his arrest, in the context of a 7-count indictment involving intimate partner violence and firearms offences.

The court considers whether the statements were voluntary and whether the accused’s Charter rights to counsel and silence were breached.

After reviewing the evidence and credibility of the witnesses, the court finds that the accused was properly informed of his rights, that his statements were voluntary, and that there was no improper inducement, oppression, or police trickery.

The accused’s Charter application is dismissed, and the utterances are ruled admissible.

The applicant, Chad Rolling, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was breached.

The court found that, after deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay did not exceed the 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits.

The LAT had found that the appellant's physician, Dr. Ofokansi, provided only a conclusory opinion on the OCF-19 form without supporting analysis or medical data.

The appellant argued the LAT should have considered the evidence of his psychologist, Dr. Reesor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 45 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule requires a catastrophic impairment assessment to be conducted by a physician.

Since the physician's assessment was entirely conclusory and entitled to no weight, the psychologist's evidence alone was insufficient to establish the claim.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action against a temporary help agency for alleged employee misclassification.

The motion judge had found that the proposed common issues regarding whether the agency was an employer under the Employment Standards Act or at common law lacked sufficient commonality and required individual determinations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no systemic commonality among the putative class members' arrangements.

Leave to appeal the costs award of $333,114.05 was also denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision that struck the personal respondents and dismissed his human rights application at a summary hearing.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision to strike the personal respondents was reasonable, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

However, the court held the HRTO unreasonably dismissed the application by failing to justify its conclusion that there was 'no evidence' of discrimination despite the applicant's factual assertions.

Furthermore, the HRTO breached procedural fairness by ordering a summary hearing after a previous Vice-Chair had already directed a merits hearing which had commenced.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO for a merits hearing.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not provide a costs outline.