P. Andras Schreck

The applicant, an elected school trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision finding she breached its Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The board alleged a conflict of interest after a parent committee hired the applicant's husband for a presentation.

An independent investigator concluded there was no breach, but the board rejected this finding without providing reasons.

The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it was unsupported by the record and lacked justification.

The board's decisions on the breach and sanctions were quashed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of their stored goods due to unpaid storage fees.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the extensive history of unsuccessful motions and appeals across multiple courts.

Finding the proceedings to be a collateral attack on previous orders and a blatant abuse of the court's process, the court dismissed the proceeding as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1).

The appellant's children were brought to a place of safety by the Children's Aid Society.

The protection application was later withdrawn and the parties reached an agreement.

The appellant subsequently brought a motion for a declaration that the CAS acted unlawfully by not obtaining a warrant, and sought costs.

The motion judge declined to rule on the warrant issue and declined to order costs.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision to decline declaratory relief or in her application of costs principles.

The moving party, a self-represented mother, sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a temporary placement order that placed her children in the care of their father under the supervision of the children's aid society.

The court applied the four-factor test for an extension of time.

While accepting the mother's explanation for the delay, the court found that the prejudice to the children caused by litigation uncertainty and the unlikelihood of leave being granted weighed against the extension.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a motion within a judicial review application seeking an order to compel the Law Society of Ontario to file a record of proceedings under s. 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Law Society argued that its decision to close the applicant's complaint against a lawyer was not a 'statutory power of decision' and thus no record was required.

The court dismissed the motion as moot, finding that the affidavit filed by the Law Society in its motion record already provided the information and confirmation the applicant sought.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision confirming that police misconduct complaints were unsubstantiated following her arrests and stayed criminal charges.

The court held that the Director's decision was reviewable on a reasonableness standard and rejected arguments for correctness review based on an alleged implicit declaration of guilt.

The reasons emphasized the distinction between reasonable grounds for arrest or charge and criminal guilt, and confirmed that stayed proceedings not recommenced within one year are deemed never to have commenced under s. 579(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found no reviewable error in the Director's treatment of the evidentiary record, including the arrest for breach of undertaking.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to neighbouring landowners to operate a dog kennel.

The respondents challenged the applicant's standing due to recent legislative amendments limiting third-party appeal rights.

The Divisional Court found the applicant had private interest standing because the variance directly affected their ability to build on their own land.

The Court held the Committee's decision was unreasonable as it failed to articulate or apply the four-part statutory test for a minor variance and provided inadequate reasons.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the Committee for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a discipline decision of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which arose from an agreed statement of fact, plea, and joint submission on penalty.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence, alleging that a panel member was asleep during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence was not sufficiently cogent and partly inadmissible hearsay.

As there were no other grounds for the appeal, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, a school board trustee, brought an application for judicial review of an in-camera decision of the respondent school board.

At the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the in-camera decision had not been brought to a public vote as required by the Education Act.

The parties reached an agreement that no decision was made and the matter would not be put to a public vote, leaving only the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, finding that the respondent failed to communicate its intention not to proceed with a public vote until the hearing, causing the applicant to unnecessarily incur costs.

The appellant father appealed a final parenting order that granted the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their four children.

The father argued the trial judge erred by relying on incorrect translations, failing to enforce shared parenting provisions in their domestic contracts, creating an unclear parenting schedule, and failing to ensure procedural fairness for him as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of translation errors, that the trial judge properly disregarded the domestic contracts under s. 56 of the Family Law Act as they were not in the children's best interests, that the parenting schedule was clear, and that the trial judge fulfilled all obligations to assist a self-represented litigant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision dated July 21, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay inclusive costs of $5,000 to the responding party within thirty days.

The applicant sought judicial review of an administrative penalty order issued to his father, the registered owner of a vehicle caught speeding by an automated camera.

The applicant was the driver and acted as his father's agent before the tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that under section 21.1(9) of the Highway Traffic Act, the driver does not have standing to seek judicial review.

The court adjourned the hearing and ordered the title of proceedings amended to substitute the father as the proper applicant.

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 ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

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 ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and firearms offences arising from a shootout at a restaurant, the court ruled on the admissibility of the criminal records and police occurrence reports of one of the co-accused, the deceased, and the other co-accused.

The court excluded the co-accused's criminal record, finding its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its limited probative value regarding credibility and self-defence.

The court admitted the deceased's criminal record and related occurrence reports, as they were relevant to the accused's claim of self-defence and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

The court excluded double hearsay occurrence reports and unproven police synopses relating to the accused.

The applicant law firm obtained a default judgment in Small Claims Court against the respondent for unpaid legal fees.

The respondent successfully moved to set aside the default judgment, citing mental health issues that caused him to miss settlement conferences.

The applicant sought judicial review of the order setting aside the default judgment and brought a motion for a stay to prevent the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the respondent's home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court noted that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory Small Claims Court order and judicial review cannot be used to circumvent this.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for breach of contract regarding unpaid fees for preparing a tax credit application.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, ignored fraud allegations, and erred by enforcing a 36% interest rate, which it claimed was a criminal rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The court also held that the 36% interest rate was not a criminal rate because the agreement fell under the commercial borrowing exemption in the Criminal Interest Rate Regulations.

The respondent landlord brought a motion for security for costs in the appellants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The landlord sought over $34,000, primarily based on an unpaid costs award from a previous proceeding and a disputed claim for unpaid rent.

The court found that while the unpaid costs award met the threshold for ordering security, the primary purpose of the motion was to recover disputed rent rather than to protect against future costs.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to order security for costs, finding it was not in the interests of justice.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

A 17-year-old defendant was charged with second-degree murder in the death of an 18-year-old who was fatally stabbed during a group altercation outside a nightclub.

The Crown conceded that the evidence did not support a murder charge and sought a conviction for manslaughter.

The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the defendant participated in escalating the initial conflict and used weapons when others did not, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court considered the group dynamic, the speed of events, and the defendant's age in applying a modified objective standard of reasonableness.

The defendant was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.

Crown application for a "High Risk Accused" designation under s. 672.64(1) of the Criminal Code for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (schizophrenia) for serious violent offences including robbery, attempted break and enter, and two counts of aggravated assault.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the offences were serious and brutal in nature, the Crown failed to establish a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence endangering another's life or safety.

The accused has responded well to treatment, is currently symptom-free, and demonstrates insight into his condition, though uncertainty remains regarding his adherence to treatment if released into the community without supervision.