Charles T. Hackland

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had refused the landlord access to the property, failed to pay rent since May 2021, and ignored a Board order to pay rent in trust.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit, did not raise questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed to delay eviction and avoid paying rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the automatic stay of eviction was set aside.

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 519 (CCC 519) brought an application seeking to compel Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 656 (OCC 656) and Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 522 (CCC 522) to share the costs of replacing a critical electric switchgear (ESG) located on CCC 519's property but serving all three condominiums.

CCC 522 agreed to contribute, but OCC 656 refused, arguing its declaration did not require it and CCC 519 was responsible for its common areas.

The court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, finding OCC 656 had been incontrovertibly benefited and failed to establish a juristic reason for retaining the benefit without contributing.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement constituted a juristic reason.

The application was granted, requiring both respondents to share costs equitably, with a reference directed for cost apportionment if necessary.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from removing mature trees and commencing construction of a subway station on the historic Osgoode Hall site.

The LSO argued that Metrolinx's actions required municipal approval under s. 33(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding no serious issue to be tried because s. 33(1) does not apply to neighboring property owners or to prescribed public bodies like Metrolinx, which are governed by a separate statutory regime.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the critical public transit project to proceed.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from removing 11 trees on its property near Osgoode Hall, pending adequate engagement regarding the Ontario Line subway project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that HDI would suffer no irreparable harm as the trees were not historically unique and would be replaced, and that monetary damages would suffice for any compensation claims.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience strongly favoured Metrolinx due to the severe financial and public interest consequences of delaying the transit project.

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed an Assessment Review Board decision classifying its property as Multi-Residential rather than Residential.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by focusing exclusively on the physical layout of the suites rather than the occupancy arrangements to determine if they were 'self-contained units'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly considered both the physical layout and the occupancy arrangements, and that the Board's application of these factors was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appellate review.

The applicant, charged with offences related to his involvement in the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, brought a motion for a change of venue for his trial.

He argued that extensive negative media coverage and the high concentration of federal government employees in Ottawa would prevent him from receiving a fair trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the media coverage was not specifically directed at the applicant and that his concerns about government employees were baseless.

The court concluded that traditional safeguards, such as screening questions and challenges for cause, would be adequate to ensure an impartial jury and address any potential bias from residents directly affected by the protest.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favorable than the final judgment of $35,743.13.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

After considering proportionality and the respondent's unreasonable conduct in arguing mitigation without evidence and relying on an invalid termination clause, the court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and interest.

The applicant sought a declaration that a right of first refusal (ROFR) on her property was extinguished and an order for its removal from title.

The ROFR was triggered by a third-party offer, which the respondent exercised but then failed to complete.

The court interpreted the ROFR clause and common law principles, concluding that the ROFR was extinguished once exercised, even if the transaction was not completed, as the clause did not provide for reinstatement in such circumstances.

The application was granted, and the ROFR was ordered removed from title.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court dated March 28, 2022.

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

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated August 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 25, 2021.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Petersen J. dated May 25, 2022.

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

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found the landlords served a notice of termination in bad faith but declined to award any remedies under s. 57(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision not to award damages for increased rent, moving expenses, or general damages, and its refusal to impose an administrative fine, were discretionary and based on factual findings that disclosed no error of law.

The self-represented tenants appealed a Superior Court order requiring them to pay $47,300 in rental arrears and vacate their unit.

They filed the appeal in the Divisional Court.

The court held that because the appealed order included an eviction order, jurisdiction properly rested with the Court of Appeal pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal and costs were awarded to the landlords.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to issue a caution and require a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The complaint was initiated by the patient's spouse regarding complementary medicine and record-keeping.

The applicant argued the ICRC investigation was procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of documents and that the complaint should not have been investigated as it was not from the patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the ICRC was within its mandate to investigate third-party complaints to protect the public interest.

The moving party, Telus Communications Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Perell J. dated January 12, 2021 and August 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 16, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $3,500.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Faieta J. dated August 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $3,000.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that it appeared to be premature, without prejudice to the parties' positions on the final determination of the motion.

No costs were ordered.

The defendants, the Canada School of Public Service and five employees, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction under s. 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

The plaintiff, a former federal public servant whose security clearance was revoked, sued for breach of privacy, negligence, and defamation after her employer reported a suspicious fax to the police.

The court held that the privacy claims relating to the employer's involvement of the police fell outside the collective agreement and could proceed.

However, the negligence and defamation claims regarding workplace discipline and suspensions were in their essential character workplace disputes and were stayed.