W. Danial Newton

The moving party sought leave to appeal a 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party did not file materials and the Public Guardian and Trustee did not seek costs, no costs were ordered.

The City of Thunder Bay sought costs on a full indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an order for an arbitrator's appointment due to the respondent's refusal to participate in arbitration.

The court, having previously ordered full indemnity costs, reviewed the City's submissions.

Despite the respondent's failure to file submissions, the court found the application was made unnecessarily complex by the respondent's irrelevant assertions.

Applying the principles from Boucher et al. v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount of $17,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding it fair and reasonable given the circumstances and the respondent's conduct.

The applicant school board applied for judicial review of a labour arbitration award that upheld two grievances filed by the union on behalf of an employee with mental health disabilities.

The arbitrator had found that the employee was entitled to a sick leave refresh and that his return to work plan should have been accommodated through remote work.

Applying the Vavilov reasonableness standard, the Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's interpretations of the collective agreement and conclusions regarding medical evidence were internally coherent, justified, and reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that it lacked just cause to dismiss a Black employee and that the dismissal was tainted by anti-Black racism.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, deferring to the Board's factual findings and credibility assessments.

The Court upheld the Board's reliance on expert evidence regarding implicit bias and circumstantial evidence to conclude that race was a factor in the termination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses a procedural breach in a motion to change spousal support.

The respondent improperly filed an affidavit in a related Family Responsibility Office enforcement proceeding, which included a confidential transcript of a case/settlement conference.

The court found this violated Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules and the Court Transcript Standards and Procedures Manual.

The judge ordered the immediate removal and destruction of the affidavit and transcript, prohibited the respondent from relying upon or disseminating any confidential statements from the conference, and mandated the destruction of all copies.

A follow-up appearance was scheduled to ensure compliance and explain the error.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought four motions for summary judgment to recover approximately $632,000 owing on various mortgages, charges, lines of credit, and a credit card, and sought writs of possession.

The defendant, Albert Peter James Francoeur, advanced arguments characteristic of an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant, claiming to appear as "CEO" of "Freedom Trust RN 623 018 037 CA" and asserting that legal title had been transferred to the Department of Finance Canada.

The court found the defendant's arguments to be without merit and consistent with OPCA tactics as described in Meads v. Meads.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, the defendant's counterclaims were dismissed, and costs were awarded to RBC.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a pharmacist who admitted to professional misconduct for submitting false billings to the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan.

The College argued the Panel erred by not imposing standard ownership restrictions on the pharmacist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's decision was owed great deference, did not misapprehend the evidence, and reasonably balanced the principles of protection of the public, proportionality, and rehabilitation without imposing the requested restrictions.

The City of Thunder Bay brought an application seeking to compel a former lessee, Dawn MacKay, to participate in arbitration to determine compensation for leasehold improvements upon the expiry of her lease.

Ms. MacKay had refused to appoint an arbitrator, disputing the lease terms, claiming land ownership, and alleging unfair valuation.

The court dismissed Ms. MacKay's arguments as unmeritorious, finding she had acknowledged the lease and that her ownership claims were irrelevant to the arbitration process.

The court ordered Ms. MacKay to appoint her arbitrator within 30 days, failing which the City could apply for the court to appoint one on her behalf.

The City was awarded full indemnity costs due to Ms. MacKay's protracted refusal to participate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of his application for registration as a Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioner and Acupuncturist.

The appellant had failed the required prior learning assessment process (PLAR) case study assessment twice.

On appeal, he argued the Board erred in denying his request for an adjournment and in finding he did not meet the registration requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary decision to deny the adjournment or its reliance on the PLAR competency assessments.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which found that the employer's labour relations were provincially regulated and allowed the union's certification applications to proceed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity.

The Court held that absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present here, administrative proceedings should not be fragmented by reviewing preliminary constitutional or jurisdictional issues before a final decision on the merits.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Steele J. dated September 27, 2022.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated October 19, 2021.

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

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

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 14, 2022.

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

The appellant requested an adjournment of the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to an in-person hearing on March 1, 2023, making the date peremptory on the appellant, with or without counsel.

Costs of the day were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

This decision addresses the final stage of a highly contentious estate dispute, focusing on the passing of accounts, discharge of estate trustees, and unequal distribution of estate proceeds.

The applicants, Lee Swearengen and Linda Arp, sought approval of their accounts and discharge, along with an unequal distribution of the estate due to the respondents' (Patricia Aho and Jerry Swearengen) conduct.

The court approved the estate trustees' accounts, including their compensation and legal fees, finding the objections by the respondents to be without merit and unduly protracted.

The court also ordered an unequal distribution, significantly reducing Jerry Swearengen's share due to his outstanding costs awards, share of estate expenses, and legal expenses incurred due to his conduct.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter to stay charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was over 53 months.

After deducting defence delay and delay caused by exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the death of the preliminary hearing judge, the net delay was calculated at 35 months and 21 days.

As this exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling and the case was not particularly complex, the court found the delay unreasonable and stayed the charges.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement following the stabbing death of his brother's common-law partner.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of three highly intoxicated witnesses, which contained inconsistencies.

The court accepted the evidence that the accused had a knife, threatened the occupants, and fled the scene before police arrived.

Applying the test for circumstantial evidence, the court found that the only reasonable inference was that the accused stabbed the victim and had the requisite intent for murder despite his intoxication.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding compensation for the expropriation of contaminated land.

The Tribunal had determined the property's market value to be $290,000 based on a speculative value, rejecting the appellant's higher valuation due to prohibitive environmental remediation costs.

The Tribunal also awarded $51,683 for wasted costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding market value and wasted costs.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that it was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal refused an interlocutory motion for third-party document production.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of an alternate suspect and inadequate police investigation.

The defence sought to cross-examine police officers about information they received regarding another individual who allegedly had a motive and recent violent encounter with the victim, but whom police failed to investigate.

The court allowed the application, finding there was an air of reality to the alternate suspect theory and that the proposed evidence was relevant to the adequacy of the police investigation.