Breese Davies

The appellant sought to appeal a default judgment ordering him to pay $20,285 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that its jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final orders for a single payment of not more than $50,000, exclusive of costs but inclusive of pre-judgment interest.

Because the total payment ordered, including interest, amounted to $50,918.83, the appeal must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister's Designee ordering him to repair and plug 62 hazardous petroleum wells owned by a bankrupt company.

The company was previously run by the applicant's deceased father.

The applicant, who had no financial interest in the company, volunteered to help his ailing father by reading meters and communicating with regulators.

The Designee found the applicant was an 'operator' under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act.

The Divisional Court held this decision was unreasonable, as there was no evidence the applicant had decision-making authority or the power to influence his father's decisions.

The application was allowed and the Designee's order was set aside.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order committing a youth to a secure treatment program for 180 days under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The trial judge found that the youth had attempted to cause serious bodily harm within the preceding 45 days based on a threat to jump off a bridge, ingestion of an unidentified quantity of methamphetamine, and an involuntary hospital admission for suicidal ideation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law because the incidents amounted to mere threats or lacked evidence of actual harm or risk of serious bodily harm.

The secure treatment order was set aside.

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario's Appeal Panel upholding a finding that she breached the Code of Ethics.

The applicant had included inaccurate property tax and local improvement charge information in a real estate listing without a sufficient public disclaimer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Discipline Panel reasonably excluded the applicant's proposed expert evidence because it went to the ultimate issue and was unnecessary.

The Court also held that the Discipline Panel's finding of professional misconduct was reasonable, as the applicant failed to clearly communicate that the tax figures were unverified estimates.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 27, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party was not called upon to file materials, no costs were ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the moving party was ordered to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to each of the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 22, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The appellant appealed a decision denying him leave to amend his statement of claim in a libel action against the respondents.

The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's decision, finding no error in the application of issue estoppel to prevent the addition of the appellant's professional corporation as a plaintiff, as a previous judge had already ruled the corporation had no tenable cause of action.

The court also upheld the refusal to allow scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs about a non-party, and the refusal to permit a claim for document production within the pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision directing it to pay wages to a former employee.

The employer argued the Board's credibility findings were inconsistent and its decision unreasonable regarding the employee's refusal of a call-in shift.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings and noting that a trier of fact may accept parts of a witness's evidence while rejecting others.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed a union grievance regarding the assignment of bargaining unit work to management personnel.

The arbitrator found that a bargaining unit member was available for the assignment, despite not meeting the specific conditions of the Auxiliary Board, and that the employer breached the collective agreement by using a manager.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and finding of availability were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for rental arrears.

The tenant argued the Board erred by denying an adjournment to challenge his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) calculations, failing to find illegal rent increases, and proceeding despite an incomplete audio recording.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the incomplete recording did not prevent meaningful review, the Board correctly held it lacked jurisdiction over RGI calculations, and the tenant failed to act with reasonable diligence to challenge the calculations elsewhere.

The changes in rent payable were lawful RGI recalculations, and the arrears calculation was an unappealable finding of fact.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a stated case to the Divisional Court to determine whether the Durham Regional Police Service had a lawful excuse for refusing to produce certain emails responsive to a summons.

The DRPS claimed the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

After reviewing the emails, the court found they involved communications between senior members of the DRPS and their counsel related to the provision of legal advice.

The court held the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege and the DRPS was justified in withholding them.

Justice for Children and Youth (JFCY) brought a motion for leave to intervene in the Law Society of Ontario's application for judicial review of a decision finding the respondent to be of good character but imposing a condition that he not meet alone with minor children.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing JFCY lacked a unique perspective, would augment the record, and was in a conflict of interest.

The court granted JFCY leave to intervene on the issues of whether the condition is consistent with Charter values or international law, and whether the Law Society's duty to regulate in the public interest includes protecting children.

The court found no conflict of interest and restricted JFCY from augmenting the evidentiary record or taking a position on the disposition.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment from a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of expert and lay evidence, relied on hearsay, and misapplied the causation test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably rejected the appellant's expert evidence after the expert recanted his opinion upon being presented with contradictory medical and benefits records.

The court also held that hearsay evidence is admissible before the Tribunal and the causation test was properly applied.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review seeking an order requiring the respondent ministries to conduct an environmental assessment for the redevelopment of the West Island at Ontario Place.

Shortly after the application was commenced, the provincial government passed the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023, which explicitly exempted the Ontario Place lands from the Environmental Assessment Act.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding it was plain and obvious the application could not succeed given the statutory exemption.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issue of whether the government's conduct prior to the new legislation was unlawful.

No costs were awarded as the applicant was a public interest litigant.

The moving parties, Toufik Benhamiche and Kahina Bensaadi, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perfetto J. dated February 21, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 23, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,581.11.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking their registrations for breaching conditions and ungovernability.

A single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed their motion for a stay pending appeal.

The appellants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside that order.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's application of the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The applicant physician sought to set aside a motion judge's decision quashing his application for judicial review of the hospital boards' decision not to renew his privileges.

The motion judge had found the application would offend the principle against fragmentation and constituted a collateral attack on the Public Hospitals Act process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding the application was premature, any procedural defects were cured by a subsequent de novo hearing before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, and the remedy sought was an abuse of process aimed at producing an inconsistent result.

The responding party sought judicial review of a professional discipline appeal division decision finding the moving party to be of good character despite past sexual misconduct.

The moving party brought a motion for a declaration that the tribunal's anonymization order applied to the court proceedings, or alternatively, for a new anonymization order.

The court held that the tribunal's order did not apply and a separate court order was required.

Applying the test for exceptions to the open court principle, the court granted a temporary anonymization order protecting the identities of the moving party, his former spouse, and their children until the end of the judicial review hearing, finding that the risk of psychological harm to the children outweighed the temporary impact on the open court principle.