Breese Davies

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Emery J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court made no order as to costs because the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to file a judicial review application.

The underlying dispute involved a duty of fair representation complaint against her union following an arbitration that reinstated her without compensation.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision, and noting that the proposed fresh evidence would not have altered the outcome.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The defendants, Robert Horychuk and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order regarding examinations for discovery.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two questions: whether the court has jurisdiction to compel the Ministry of Transportation to answer questions on discovery under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, and if not, whether the Ministry attorned to the court's jurisdiction by defending the claims.

Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The single judge had quashed the moving party's appeal from a pre-hearing decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal's decision was interlocutory, not final.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge applied the correct law and made no error in concluding that the Tribunal's decision regarding the use of criminal disclosure was not a final decision.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court.

On consent, the Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the lower court's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Superior Court in Milton for the scheduling of a case conference.

No costs were ordered.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hooper J. dated December 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $4,132.41.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request to stay a decision of the Animal Care Review Board.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from the applicant's residence and issued a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the stay motion was moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown due to non-payment.

The panel also upheld the motion judge's finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Gorman J. dated October 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party condominium corporation brought a motion to quash the respondent's appeal and application for judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision.

The respondent had previously failed to file materials, failed to comply with conditions of an adjournment including paying costs awards, and failed to confirm he authorized the proceedings.

The Divisional Court found the proceedings were filed solely to delay the implementation of the Tribunal's decision and were manifestly devoid of merit.

The motion was granted and the appeal and application for judicial review were quashed.

The appellant, Ontario, appealed a case management judge's order that directed multiple motions, including motions to strike, to proceed concurrently with the respondents' motion for leave to pursue a bad faith claim against the Crown.

Ontario argued that section 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 imposes an automatic stay on the entire proceeding until leave is granted.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the statutory stay applies to all claims in the proceeding, not just those against the Crown, and that the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot override this statutory mandate.

The appeal was granted, and all motions other than the leave motion were stayed.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision dismissing his application for judicial review.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred in finding he lacked standing and that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision.

The respondent was awarded costs of $5,579.50.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of HST.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against an anaesthesiologist.

The applicant alleged the doctor's inadequate care during her spouse's surgery contributed to his severe dementia and death, and claimed the subsequent investigation was inadequate and medical records were falsified.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding HPARB's conclusions that the investigation was adequate and the decision was reasonable were both reasonable, and finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, no costs were ordered.

J.C. was found guilty after trial of two counts of sexual interference and one count of accessing child pornography.

The sexual assault counts were stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R. v. Friesen to increase sentences for child sexual offences, imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years in custody.

The judge considered aggravating factors such as the young age and vulnerability of the victims (his 2-year-old daughter and 9-year-old niece), the abuse of trust, and the location of the offences.

Mitigating factors included J.C.'s lack of criminal record, stable employment history, and community support.

The court also addressed the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for accessing child pornography, finding it unconstitutional based on R. v. John.

Ancillary orders for DNA, SOIRA registration, and various prohibitions were also imposed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The appellant argued for no costs or a maximum of $5,000, claiming the appeal raised an issue of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected the no-costs argument, noting the appellant re-litigated factual issues, attacked the integrity of the discipline process, and constantly evolved his grounds of appeal, which increased the respondent's costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

J.C. was charged with two counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual interference, one count of assault, and one count of accessing child pornography.

The court found J.C. guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference with respect to his two-year-old daughter (S.) and his nine-year-old niece (K.), and guilty of accessing child pornography.

J.C. was acquitted of assaulting his wife (A.A.), as the court found his actions were consistent with self-defence or defence of property.

The case involved detailed analysis of witness credibility, forensic evidence, and the legal distinction between possessing and accessing child pornography.

This ruling addresses an application by Ramin Rayegan-Tafreshi for leave to cross-examine affiants of Information to Obtain (ITO) documents related to wiretap authorizations and a general warrant.

The applicant sought to challenge the investigative necessity for the initial wiretap authorization and the reasonable grounds for the general warrant.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant regarding the wiretap's investigative necessity, finding that the ITO contained conclusory and potentially misleading statements about alternative investigative techniques.

However, the court denied leave to cross-examine the affiant regarding the general warrant, concluding that the applicant's challenge was a facial attack on the warrant's validity that could be addressed through legal argument without cross-examination.

This was a family law costs decision arising from a settled third-party records motion seeking production from a bank.

The court held that settlement did not preclude a full costs analysis and found the moving party was successful because the consent order delivered the disclosure relief sought.

In any event, costs were warranted under the Family Law Rules because the responding party had repeatedly failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and acted unreasonably on the motion itself.

The court found the amount claimed excessive for a straightforward production motion and fixed fair and proportionate costs at $8,500 on a partial indemnity basis.