Alexandre Kaufman

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing their claim against the university.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after the university denied funding for a powerchair under a disability bursary program.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, finding that the Tribunal was not required to address every piece of evidence, reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the interpretation of the benefits manual, and correctly applied the test for prima facie discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of Board decisions dismissing his complaint that the union breached its duty of fair representation in withdrawing a grievance over his dismissal for alleged benefits fraud.

Applying reasonableness review, the court held the Board reasonably concluded that the union was required to give fair, objective and due consideration to the grievance, not to conduct an exhaustive investigation or arbitrate on demand.

The court also upheld the Board’s rejection of alleged conflict, bias, and human rights arguments that were either not properly pleaded or unsupported by material facts.

The Board’s reasons were found to be sufficient, coherent, and responsive to the record.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of a Superior Court judge to the Divisional Court.

The motion was determined in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and made no costs order.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary family law order of a Superior Court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party.

The endorsement is brief and contains no substantive analysis of the leave criteria.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order appointing an inspector to investigate the financial affairs of their jointly owned pharmacies and granting the respondents leave to bring derivative actions on behalf of the corporations.

The appellants argued the dispute should be stayed in favour of arbitration, that an inspector was unnecessary, and that the oppression remedy was an adequate alternative to a derivative action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitration clauses did not apply to the corporations, the appellants had attorned to the court's jurisdiction, the inspector was necessary to uncover facts after the appellants failed to comply with production orders, and the derivative actions were in the best interests of the corporations to recover diverted funds.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered an intracranial brain contusion.

The insurer placed her in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), limiting her benefits to $3,500.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld this decision, finding that the definition of 'minor injury' includes all contusions, including brain contusions.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal erred in law by focusing on the degree of impairment rather than the nature of the injury.

The court held that an intracranial brain contusion is not a 'minor injury' under the SABS, allowed the appeal, and ordered the appellant removed from the MIG.

On a pre-trial application under ss. 276 and 278.92-278.94 of the Criminal Code, the accused sought to adduce prior-conduct evidence and to classify various defence-held materials as non-records.

The court held the proposed sexual-history evidence did not satisfy s. 276(2), finding it invited impermissible twin-myth reasoning and was not proper rebuttal evidence.

On the record-screening issue, the court applied the J.J. framework and concluded the disputed videos, emails, and photographs did not contain intimate or highly personal information sufficient to engage the statutory regime.

Only police reports were found to be records.

The court also barred Crown use at trial of materials determined to be non-records that surfaced through the defence application for directions.

The accused, charged with ten firearm offences and one count of possession of cocaine, brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of a handgun and cocaine seized from him, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found the investigative detention was lawfully grounded in reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, including the officer's observation of a suspected drug transaction at a location of prior drug activity.

While a s. 10(b) breach was established due to a nearly two-minute delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel upon detention, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach arose from a mistake rather than deliberate misconduct, had minimal impact on Charter-protected interests, and the reliable physical evidence was central to serious charges.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision refusing to reconsider its dismissal of his complaint against Meta Platforms Inc. for lack of jurisdiction.

The HRTO had concluded that Meta is a federally regulated undertaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HRTO's jurisdictional decision was correct.

Applying the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity and division of powers principles, the Court confirmed that Meta provides services over the internet, constituting an interprovincial telecommunications undertaking subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment decision dismissing their oppression claim against the respondent in his personal capacity.

The motion judge had found that the appellants did not qualify as 'complainants' under section 245 of the Business Corporations Act, as they were not creditors and their status as potential creditors did not make them proper persons to bring an oppression claim.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law.

The court confirmed that the motion judge properly applied the test for complainant status and the framework for partial summary judgment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing two related actions for delay following a status review under Rule 48.14(5).

The actions, arising from a property dispute, had not advanced beyond the pleadings stage after six to seven years.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's application of the Henderson test, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that the appellant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

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 party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not provide a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither responding party filed a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant union (UA) sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the installation of a water-based fire suppression system.

The Board had assigned the work to the Labourers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) based on area practice, despite UA's argument that the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA) created exclusive jurisdiction for its members.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board reasonably concluded that BOSTA's purpose is to protect the public by determining necessary skill sets, not to override the traditional factors considered in work assignment disputes between competing unions.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner decisions ordering the Cabinet Office to obtain and review entries from the Premier's personal cellphone call logs that related to government business.

The IPC had found that these specific call logs were under the control of the Cabinet Office pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's application of the National Defence control test was reasonable and that the decisions appropriately balanced the public's right of access to government information with the protection of personal privacy.

The applicant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the Tribunal admitted the respondent insurer's expert psychiatric reports but refused to issue a summons to compel the expert's attendance for cross-examination due to non-compliance with procedural rules.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's strict application of its rules and refusal to facilitate the cross-examination of a key expert witness on a critical issue breached the applicant's right to procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim decision and order of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded agreed costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

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

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Des Rosiers J. dated September 2, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.