Breese Davies

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs endorsement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated June 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved the costs of the motion to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellants sought to appeal a decision declining to award costs against a law firm under s. 86(1)(b)(i) of the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court held that leave to appeal was required under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act because the appeal was solely regarding discretionary costs, and the costs order did not constitute a 'judgment' under s. 71 of the Construction Act.

Finding that the test for leave was not met, the court denied leave and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision restoring a restrictive covenant and Notice of Claim on her property.

The property was originally under the Registry Act, where a 1958 restrictive covenant was extended to 2038 by a 1998 Notice of Claim.

In 2003, the property was converted to the Land Titles system.

The appellant argued that under s. 119(9) of the Land Titles Act, the covenant was deemed to expire 40 years after its original 1958 registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conversion to Land Titles did not extinguish the rights preserved by the Notice of Claim under the Registry Act, and the covenant remains valid until 2038.

The appellant, a former tenant in rent-geared-to-income housing, brought a motion for an extension of time to seek a panel review of a single judge's order.

The single judge had previously denied the appellant an extension of time to seek judicial review of 2022 Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to form an intention to review the decision within the four-day appeal period, provided no compelling explanation for the lengthy delay, and that the underlying application lacked merit as the Board has no jurisdiction to review rent-geared-to-income calculations.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody of the parties' child to the respondent mother and specifying his parenting time.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider the maximum contact principle, misapprehended evidence including family violence, ignored case law, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly focused on the child's best interests, made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the evidence, was not required to cite case law, and demonstrated no bias.

The appellants, long-term tenants of over 42 years, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy due to severe clutter and fire hazards in their unit.

The tenants argued that the Board denied them procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment, failing to follow proper review procedures, and issuing an unconditional eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Court held that the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment was a reasonable exercise of discretion, the review process was fair, and the factual findings regarding the ongoing fire hazard were supported by the evidence.

The Board had the authority to issue an unconditional eviction order given the tenants' failure to de-clutter the unit over a two-year period.

The appellant, a 48-year tenant, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for failing to comply with a conditional payment plan for rental arrears, as well as an order denying her request for a review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not err in law by refusing to consider post-hearing evidence explaining her non-compliance, nor did it breach procedural fairness by denying the review without an oral hearing.

The court held that the Board's decision not to grant relief from eviction was a question of mixed fact and law, which could not be appealed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Senate Appeals Committee, which upheld his withdrawal from a Masters program for failing to complete his thesis within the maximum allowable time.

The applicant argued the committee failed to accommodate his disability, excluded relevant evidence, and unreasonably denied him a further extension or the right to re-apply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the committee lacked jurisdiction over discrimination claims, reasonably excluded irrelevant evidence, and made reasonable factual findings that the applicant was unlikely to complete his thesis even with an extension.

The applicant insurer sought a stay of Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceedings pending a judicial review of the LAT's refusal to adjourn a hearing date.

Neither counsel for the applicant nor the respondent were available for the scheduled hearing dates.

The LAT opposed the stay and argued the judicial review was premature.

The single judge of the Divisional Court adjourned the stay motion to a full panel, noting the motion's outcome would likely resolve the underlying judicial review.

The appellant supplier claimed it was owed $600,000 for building materials and sought a declaration that the proceeds of the sale of a model home were held in trust under the Construction Act.

The motion judge ordered only a portion of the sale proceeds to be held in court under Rule 45.02, finding a serious issue to be tried only for the materials supplied to that specific home.

The appellant appealed, arguing the order was final.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory because it did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties regarding the scope of the trust.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Transportation's decisions to request a medical examination and subsequently suspend his driver's licence, as well as the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Minister's actions were prompted by a police report raising concerns about the applicant's hearing and vision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the LAT reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Highway Traffic Act to hear the appeal.

The Court also held that the Minister's decisions were reasonable, procedurally fair, and did not violate the applicant's Charter rights.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

The appellant's father, who is not a lawyer, sought to represent him, claiming the appellant suffers from a mental disability.

After a previous motion to appoint the father as litigation guardian was dismissed, the court provided directions for the father to bring a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee to act on the appellant's behalf.

The moving party, a sole practitioner, sought a stay of a five-month suspension imposed by the Law Society Tribunal pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the moving party raised a serious issue regarding whether the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the Groia test for in-court behaviour in the context of his freedom of expression claim.

The court also found that the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if forced to serve the suspension before the appeal, as he would lose his clients and likely complete the suspension before the appeal was heard.

The balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion was granted, but costs were denied as the self-represented moving party failed to prove opportunity costs.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had not paid rent for 16 months, accumulating over $30,000 in arrears, and failed to comply with a court direction to pay ongoing rent.

The court found that it would be an abuse of process to allow the tenant to continue living in the unit rent-free pending the appeal.

The motion was granted and the stay was lifted.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenants' appeal.

The tenants had not paid rent since December 2023 and failed to comply with a prior court direction to pay their monthly rent on October 1, 2024.

The court found that allowing the tenants to continue living in the unit without paying rent would be an abuse of process.

The motion was granted and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and seeking compensation for mold damage.

The Board had found the landlord failed to prove the tenant caused the mold and granted the tenant a rent abatement for inadequate ventilation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Board misstated the legal test for causation in its conclusion, the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the Board's factual finding that the tenant did not cause the mold was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party tribunal brought a motion to strike an application for judicial review of an interim decision that removed the responding party's counsel due to an alleged appearance of a conflict of interest.

The tribunal argued the judicial review was premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the application would fail, as there was a reasonable argument that exceptional circumstances existed to justify reviewing the interim decision.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to reimburse the tenant for rent overcharges, as well as the Board's subsequent refusal to review the decision after the landlord failed to attend the hearing.

The landlord argued the Board cited the wrong statutory provision regarding parking fees and erred in rejecting its explanation of a computer glitch for missing the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test despite citing the wrong section, and that the Board's finding on the landlord's lack of reasonable diligence was an unappealable question of mixed fact and law.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision striking a one-day suspension given to a union representative for unprofessional conduct during and after a termination meeting.

The employer argued the arbitration was procedurally unfair and the arbitrator applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator's refusal to hear a preliminary objection regarding evidence admissibility breached procedural fairness, the outcome of a new hearing would inevitably be the same.

The arbitrator had accepted the employer's evidence regarding the conduct but correctly applied the legal test protecting union representatives from discipline unless their conduct is malicious, knowingly false, or intimidating.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.