P. Andras Schreck

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.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his daughter, who was between the ages of nine and 14 during the offences.

The offender absconded prior to the sentencing hearing.

Applying the principles from Friesen, the court prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the extreme breach of trust and the vulnerability of the child.

The court sentenced the offender in absentia to eight years' imprisonment concurrent on each count, along with mandatory weapons prohibitions, a DNA order, and a SOIRA order.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its employees were provincially regulated for labour relations purposes.

The applicant, a track welding company performing work primarily for interprovincial railways, argued its operations fell under derivative federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board correctly applied the derivative jurisdiction test.

The court found the applicant's work involved maintenance of railway infrastructure rather than the operation of the railways themselves, and thus did not meet the exceptional threshold for federal jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a decision finding them liable for corporate oppression, removing them as directors, and ordering audited financial statements.

They challenged the application judge's refusal to order a winding up of the corporation and the award of substantial indemnity costs.

They also sought to raise a new limitation period defence regarding the financial statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the discretionary refusal to wind up the company or the costs award, and declined to hear the new limitation period argument due to an inadequate evidentiary record.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she failed to establish catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant argued the LAT adjudicator breached procedural fairness by imposing strict time limits on witness examinations, making unequal evidentiary rulings regarding expert psychiatric testimony, and admitting a late surveillance report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's procedural choices were within her discretion to control the tribunal's process and did not result in unfairness.

The court also found no error of law in the LAT's application of the test for catastrophic impairment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application as abandoned.

The Tribunal had directed the applicant to resubmit documents it deemed faint and illegible, and dismissed the application when he allegedly failed to comply.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because the documents, while faint, were clearly legible.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant was injured in a workplace accident and received WSIB benefits while retraining at an architectural firm.

He was subsequently injured in a motor vehicle accident, rendering him a paraplegic and unable to continue his retraining, which reduced his WSIB benefits.

He applied for income replacement benefits under the SABS, but his insurer denied the claim on the basis that he was not 'employed' at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal erred in its interpretation of 'employed' by requiring an exchange of wages for services, and held that the appellant's employment relationship and receipt of employment-related income satisfied the statutory requirement.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The City sought $27,699.06 and the developer sought $43,176.94, while the appellant argued costs should be fixed at $25,000.00 total.

The Divisional Court noted the appellant's own bill of costs was over $59,000, indicating its reasonable expectations.

The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 to the City and $30,000.00 to the developer, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's order varying child support and section 7 expenses.

The motion judge had found a material change in circumstances due to the children's refusal to accept transportation from the respondent father, and the eldest child's attendance at university combined with the appellant's failure to disclose funding sources.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material error, misapprehension of evidence, or error in law in the motion judge's discretionary decisions, and rejected the appellant's claim of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiff, a pizza delivery driver, brought a proposed class action against the franchisor and 141 franchisees alleging misclassification as an independent contractor.

Both the plaintiff and the franchisee defendants appealed the certification judge's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the finding that the franchisees were not 'common employers' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court granted the franchisees' appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in certifying a conspiracy claim among all defendants because the pleadings only alleged the franchisor controlled the agreements, not that the franchisees conspired with each other.

The certification of employment status as a common issue and the negligence claim were upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decisions to approve planning applications and a demolition permit for the respondent theatre company's heritage theatre, located in a heritage conservation district.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant, a local building corporation, lacked both private and public interest standing to challenge the decisions.

In the alternative, the court held that the municipality's decisions to permit the demolition and exempt the new theatre from parking requirements were reasonable, as they were based on extensive consultation, expert reports, and a balancing of heritage conservation with accessibility and economic benefits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review from an adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

Although the responding party was successful, the court declined to award costs because the responding party failed to deliver a costs outline or bill of costs prior to the hearing, contrary to the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated September 10, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and related relief.

No costs were ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dated September 29, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the agreed amount of $4,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the lower court and for an extension of time to bring the motion for leave to appeal one of those decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered no costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Toronto Licensing Tribunal decisions that first suspended and later revoked his vehicle-for-hire licence due to uncivil behaviour toward municipal staff.

The applicant argued the tribunal ignored evidence of provocation and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal reasonably weighed the evidence, considered the context, and appropriately prioritized the public interest after the applicant continued his behaviour despite completing anger management counselling.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly analyze the distinct factual underpinnings and time periods of the two proceedings.

The application for judicial review was granted, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication.

The moving party father sought an urgent stay of an interim order granting the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility regarding their eight-year-old child's medical treatment, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The mother wished to follow a pediatric endocrinologist's advice to commence treatment for a medical condition, while the father opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the father failed to establish a serious issue to be determined on the motion for leave to appeal, as there were no conflicting decisions on the legal principles and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured expeditious decision-making in the child's best interests.

The applicant, an elected school trustee, sought judicial review of two Board decisions finding she breached the Trustees' Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information and imposing 90-day meeting suspensions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications to quash the decisions, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, no Charter violations, and that the decisions were reasonable.

However, the court found the 90-day sanctions unreasonable as they appeared to rely on a new statutory regime not yet applicable, and varied the sanctions to the 38 days already served.

The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.

Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.

The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.

The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.