P. Andras Schreck

The Regional Municipality of York appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision awarding approximately $2.4 million in compensation to a landowner for the expropriation of a vacant lot.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to screen out the expropriation scheme's effect on the property's value under s. 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act, and by improperly assessing the risk of land dedications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Tribunal's application of the Pointe Gourde principle and concluding that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding land dedications were entitled to deference.

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order following a shootout in a café.

The court dismissed a Charter application alleging that correctional staff improperly disseminated the offender's disclosure to other inmates, finding insufficient evidence.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 7 years imprisonment, but deducted 18 months to account for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit).

After applying Summers credit for time served, the remaining sentence was 23 months.

The moving party brought a motion to review two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as moot, without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Trimble J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of a single judge quashing his motion to hold a Landlord and Tenant Board member in contempt.

The moving party argued the single judge lacked jurisdiction to quash the motion.

The Divisional Court held that the single judge had jurisdiction under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that a finding of contempt against a Board member is precluded by adjudicative immunity.

Finding no error in the single judge's decision, the court dismissed the motion.

The appellant purchased airline tickets for her sister and niece.

Following a flight delay, the relatives assigned their claims against the airline to the appellant, who sued in Small Claims Court.

The airline successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that the assignment was invalid under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and violated the rule against champerty and maintenance.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, finding the motion judge erred in law by concluding the Act only applied to real property and by finding the assignment champertous despite the appellant's pre-existing financial interest in recouping her expenses.

The matter was remitted to the Small Claims Court.

The moving party, a former paralegal, sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his application as abandoned.

The moving party filed his notice of application nine months after the HRTO decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish apparent grounds for relief because he provided insufficient evidence to show the HRTO's decision was unreasonable.

The court also noted the nine-month delay was unexplained.

The applicants sought judicial review of an administrative directive redirecting frozen racing funds to the benefit of the Ontario racing industry rather than re-distributing them race by race.

The court held that the applicants had no remaining right or interest to challenge the directive because the earlier forfeiture order had finally disposed of the entire frozen account and any argument that some funds were from non-purse sources should have been raised in the original proceedings.

The court also held that judicial review is discretionary and declined relief because the application was perfected more than six years after commencement, the delay was excessive and inadequately explained, and prejudice was presumed.

The application was dismissed with agreed costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of B. MacFarlane J. dated September 9, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,313.06.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of a determination made by an adjudicator under the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contractors (ODACC).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudication determination made by an adjudicator in an Ontario Dispute Adjudication of Construction Contractors case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without 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 without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint as abandoned after his counsel failed to attend a case management conference, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's refusal to reconsider reasonable given an unexplained nine-month delay by counsel after learning of the dismissal.

The court also declined to extend the time to review the original dismissal decision due to the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process as an adequate alternative remedy.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Lemay J. dated September 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the respondents.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm after fatally shooting the victim in a restaurant.

The court rejected the offender's claim that he acted in self-defence, finding his belief that the victim posed a threat was unreasonable and unfounded.

Balancing the aggravating factor of using an illegal handgun in a public place against the offender's lack of a prior record and good prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 12 years, along with a concurrent five-year sentence for the firearms offence.

The moving party mother sought a stay of an order refusing to stay a Hague Convention return order pending her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The underlying order required the return of the parties' child to California in the custody of the responding party father.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the mother failed to establish a serious issue to be determined, as she was unlikely to be granted leave to appeal the interlocutory order.

The court agreed with the lower court's analysis on irreparable harm and the balance of convenience, noting the mother's history of non-compliance with court orders.

The appellant moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a single judge's order lifting a stay of an eviction order pending appeal.

The stay had been lifted because the appellant failed to comply with interim payment terms requiring him to pay ongoing compensation and arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the review motion, finding no reviewable error in the case management judge's exercise of discretion.

The court held that tenants and unauthorized occupants must pay ongoing compensation and make meaningful payments towards arrears to maintain a stay pending appeal.

The self-represented appellant filed a Notice of Appeal seeking to stay a tax sale of his property and challenge a property tax assessment by MPAC.

The appellant had previously missed the deadline to appeal the assessment to the Assessment Review Board and had a related Small Claims Court action dismissed or stayed.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from MPAC, an out-of-time appeal from the ARB without leave on a question of law, or an appeal from an interim Small Claims Court order.

The proceeding was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.